User talk:Martinevans123/Archive 18

2024

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Like 2019, remember? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I have trouble remembering five days ago, let alone five years!! 😄 But thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

That's why we have archives ;) - you click on the (former) image and get all names where it was mentioned. Longer story for Floq - don't want to type it again. - I have a poll on WT:DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The 2023 picture is from the Abel Fest in Köthen, celebrating the tercentenary of Carl Friedrich Abel, a viol virtuoso, composer and concert organiser in London (together with Bach's youngest son), born on 22 December 1723 in Köthen, where the new catalogue of his works was introduced, - my story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that you don't remember five day's ago. You met the author 14 Nov, and the catalogue 22 Dec ;) - better late than never --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page now: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

January music

story · music · places

Thank you for memories! I remember Ewa Podleś on the Main page, and have - believe it or not - two musical DYK. Shalom chaverim. On vacation, with something for your sweet tooth --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Gerda. Happy Saint Dwynwen's Day! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Today: Anna Nekhames, the article in which a reviewer found nothing interesting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Taking tons of vacation pictures, 23 chosen for 23 Jan, 6 uploaded, too tired for more - on my talk you see that it's the birthday of Mozart and our conductor ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds great. Thanks Gerda. Today also the birthday of the wonderful Robert Wyatt. [1] Jennifer Maidman guitar; Annie Whitehead trombone; etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

well, I didn't realise it was already another day - being in a different time zone than normally - Mozart and conductor 27 Jan. - All 23 pics are there now, and I hope to manage the next day later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah Gerda, you're such a jet setter! Gosh, we used to have four BBC channels... those were the days! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and a few new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Ryland Davies

On 9 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ryland Davies, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a 1974 recording of Mozart's Così fan tutte with Ryland Davies as Ferrando was used in a 1995 film by the Salzburg Marionette Theatre? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ryland Davies. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ryland Davies), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Congrats (to you and to Gerda)! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

As usual, that was about 95% Gerda. I put in the bit about him being a keen rugby player in his youth. But thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I like that to appear on my mom's birthday ;) - who introduced me to sing, sing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you (all) can add to Chris Karrer whom I nominated for RD (where it found only one support). I am not sure how to word the Krautrock legend thingy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy to bask in the reflected glory, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I have a DYK on the Main page, but my story would be different, about Figaro, - this Figaro. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Paula Vennells (but not really)

Thank you for your last message at Talk:Paula Vennells. I don't know what it is about that article, but it seems to cause an editorial dispute at every turn (not all involving you, I do acknowledge)!

I do feel as though we've got off on the wrong foot, which is a shame as I believe we edit some of the same topics and so should be Wiki-friends (or at least Wiki-acquaintances). For example, I can see you've been involved with listed buildings in Gwynedd and I've recently brought Criccieth Castle and Dolwyddelan Castle up to GA status. I hope that if we bump into each other again we can make a better go of it. All the best, A.D.Hope (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for such a friendly message. Don't worry, I appreciate your robust discussion! I'm sorry that I am forever trying to make jokes. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC) ...for a moment there I misread and thought you had bought Criccieth Castle and Dolwyddelan Castle! 😄

To be quite honest I think Wikipedia would be better if editors took themselves less seriously (and I definitely include myself there), so joke away. I reckon I'd have been more open to them if the discussion had seemed less... interminable, not that that's anyone's fault.

I don't think either castle would suit me these days, they're a bit open-plan for my taste! A.D.Hope (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The joke that blew Paula's chances of Bishop of London
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Q: Why did I have to wait a long time at the post office behind Satan? A: Because the devil can take many forms. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that's your best one yet, Martin! A.D.Hope (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, that’s not saying much! Lol. Notice I didn’t mention Horizon! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

RIP Pluto Shervington

"Dat" (1976): "Rasta Ozzy from up the hill, Decide to check on him grocery bill..." Opal Records: PAL 5 Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Was the producer for "Midnight Rider" by Paul Davidson (1975).

Thank you for ITNN for him. I wanted to fix the bare url, and get a "Security risk" warning, although it is the same website as the notice of his death which I can see fine. "the late veteran ..." isn't exactly neutral language to me ... - Have you seen my story today? Also on ITNN, - no comment yet. I have other (DYK) stories the two next days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Peter Schickele, too. But I trust that PDQ lives on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, Gerda. It's a unsecure mobile version of the site. I'll have to look for a better source which gives the chart position. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's a bit of Pluto's Little Weed from "Dat". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, lovely! - The composer is also on the Main page now, but I got nervous ;) - I have a pun on my talk, DYK, because St. Joseph is in Wedding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

A pun? Well done! But I have yet to find it, lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I thought you'd look for "wedding". Shortcut to the wedding pun --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, of course. Obviously too subtle for me! Let's hope they don't split. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Supper in Moscow for Stenka

Meanwhile... back in 1967 Soviet Russia... here's the amazing Yuri Gulyayev. (A bit incongruous, I must admit: you're all sat down cosy, in a respectable little down-town Moscow supper club, and this guy suddenly gets up and starts wailing about a 17th-century Cossack leader who kills the beautiful Persian Princess he's just married and then throws her from his boat into the River Volga, "...in a gesture addressed to his disgruntled jealous comrades who accuse him of "mellowing down" after just one night spent with a woman." Let's face it, after a few bottles of 80 proof vodka with our mates, we've all been there, haven't we. [2]) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

.... and here's the better known version. Incredibly sweet. Wonderful harmonies. So sad. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Pluto Shervington

On 20 January 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Pluto Shervington, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Stephen. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Units

"Follow the sources" is the default, but is a convention not a firm rule. In articles on UK railways, for example, the current consensus is to use imperial, despite the fact that railway engineering in Britain has been done exclusively in metric since 1975. So the disp=flip option in {{convert}} gets heavy usage .

So the choice also depends on existing use in the article concerned, hence the MOS:RETAIN reference. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I had assumed that "Follow the sources" was written somewhere in policy. I was surprised to see hectares shown first at Open University. That's a perfectly reliable source from the OU itself there, of course; perhaps ecology at the OU is always done in metric? But if one were to find multiple other sources, all equally reliable, that used acres, or which put acres first, I'm not sure how it would be "gaming the system" to use them. Most geographical areas of land I've seen for UK articles put acres first. So I guess MOS:RETAIN could be balanced against overall consistency. Are acres still taught in UK schools? I must admit I don't know. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I would call it gaming the system if someone actively went hunting for sources to support a specific POV.

AFAIK, schools teach SI as the foundation system but have to ensure that students are aware of common imperial measures in common use, like miles, feet, inches; stones, pounds and ounces; pints and possibly gallons. No doubt rural schools teach acres but I'd be surprised if urban schools bother much. Of course with lunatic ideas like pint bottles of wine being proposed in all seriousness, who knows what nonsense the DFE is demanding nowadays. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Bring it on, I say! I'm all for Letterbox wine! ...Red Wine and Hobnobs, anyone?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

RIP Laurie Johnson

Laurie Johnson MBE (7 February 1927 – 16 January 2024) - composer of the theme for The Avengers (1965) and many, many more. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

And Frank Farian. But we won't mention Milli Vanilli.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Have always seen you, Ian, as a kind of Wikipedia Daddy Cool, lol. The theme from The Avengers must be one of the best ever. "Just wonderful, Mrs. Peel"! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Farian had already done something similar with Bobby Farrell. I was shocked, shocked to learn that he did almost none of the male singing for Boney M, but it all went badly wrong with Milli Vanilli.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I imagine you've got all the Farrell moves, too! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, it should be pointed out that Maizie Williams also sang very little if at all during the studio recordings of the Boney M songs. For some reason this never caused a controversy, although it did when Farian had the same idea with Milli Vanilli.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, seems even though Morvan and Pilatus were "more talented musically than Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger", they only had a few Farrell sidestep moves... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RIP Melanie

Melanie Anne Safka-Schekeryk (February 3, 1947 – January 23, 2024): "Brand New Key". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"Brand New Key" was a number four hit in the UK, but The Wurzels reached number one with "The Combine Harvester". Life just isn't fair sometimes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

"Ooh-arh, ooh-agh". Yes, another work of genius. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Rheidol Stag

Sorry about reverting your edit, I'm tryng to keep the image close to the relevant text. It actually worked better before a previous editor removed half of the explanation. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes it did, but that may have been "copyvio", so I can't complain... Often a trade-off with stubs. "Snow biggie, dude". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That'd be me, I'm afraid! The difficulty was that the long explanation - some Martin's, some not - was not supported by the Coflein entry. This says, rather briefly, "Lead mine waste", and identifies it as a "Post-medieval Mining feature". And that's it. The long explanation of how the "head/body/legs" were formed just isn't there. Obviously, if someone can paraphrase a suitable RS which covers all this, then back in it can go. KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I understand why, I was just looking at the visual effect! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Who am I?

Apparenlty Big Brother. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Lol. Can you do the cat?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

How dare you the rumors are false (and there is a restraining order out anyway). Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Huw am I?? (Warning: recycled joke from User:Ianmacm) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The Popemobile

I'm just making a heavy-handed point to a new editor. Anna (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I enjoyed it, anyway. Gambians are people too, you know! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll stick with "Gambian school children" in future. For reference. Anna (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Birth places in lead

Hi, just clarifying. Per MOS:BIRTHPLACE birth/death places are not put in the brackets with dates. Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates. Executive zombie (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds entirely reasonable. Always great to see some useful trimming. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Glad to see we're not edit-warring...

over a packet of fags. I'm surprised that, by 2012, they could get away with heralding a packet of cigarettes as representing "20 years of quality"! ...lights another Malboro Gold and returns to task at hand. KJP1 (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"A good smoke at a fair price" (i.e. your lungs).... "No, you don't see many wild stallions any more." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Pneumatic Institution

Martin - have to break off, as we're out to lunch. I need a way to make multiple references to the Stansfield article, but with different page numbers in each. I don't really want the article to appear multiple times in the Refs. I could do it if we were sfn, but we're not. Any ideas? KJP1 (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sfn would be the way to go, I guess. Article would need a slight overhaul? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, they're all done now. If you had time to sfn it - as you say, the others would need doing to - that would be great. No worries if not, I'll put it on my To-Do list. Unless, any savvy TPSs know a better way to deal with multiple journal cites? KJP1 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok now? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Muchas gracias - looks much better! Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"No le gusta caminar, No puede montar a caballo, Cómo se puede bailar, Es un escándalo!" apologies, the only Spanish I can bring to mind.... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Biblins Bridge

Your edit here, Lady Park Wood National Nature Reserve, inspired me to create the above. I used to love running across that swingy bridge as a kid! KJP1 (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah bless. Used to go hiking around there. Yes, very swingy, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep it clean, you two! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've already promised to show him my half hitches and lashings. Just leave KJP's woggle out of this, if you don't mind! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I promise knot to do anything objectionable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"She was only the scoutmaster's daughter, But couldn't she make a massive sheet bend!!" Hay thang-u!! etc. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

KJP1 came here looking for inspiration, but just found some lost souls. --That Fish Character

I come here to share some innocent childhood memories, and it's like a round of Innuendo Bingo! KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Ha, the lovely old Samantha (and good old Sven). Yes, I know, I blame that fish character. He's like the proverbial bad penny... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC) It's a case of "oh, ruddy Nora, not again!" And I don't mean that one. But it keeps me smiling lol.

It's all Martin's fault. And I have documents to prove it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I can assure all readers that this is a complete and utter tissue of lies and extreme fibs on stilts. Any more of this malarkey and I'll probably end up with the hives and the screaming abdabs!! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

But at least your woggle will be OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not so sure about my wiggle... "It's A Wiggly Wiggly World." (... with special guest Rolf Harris!!!) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about it, either. But you can always fake it till you make it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart

While following the recent news, I wonder if the Earhart article could use some clearing up to simplify the length or descriptions of events. The description of the main image is superfluous, saying "Earhart beneath the nose of her Lockheed Model 10-E Electra, March 1937 in Oakland, California, before departing on her final round-the-world attempt prior to her disappearance"; the words "before departing on her final round-the-world attempt prior to her disappearance" could be omitted as it would be very clear when the photo was taken and doesn't necessary relate to the vanishing as that was months away. The words "It is generally presumed that she and Noonan died somewhere in the Pacific during the circumnavigation, just three weeks prior to her fortieth birthday" are an odd placement to me, as in the event any of the theories (crash and sink or Gardner island castaway) are ever confirmed, it could be misleading, particularly if for the sake of argument, it is the castaway theory that is confirmed, it possible she would have lived to have seen her 40th birthday, if she had survived on Gardner for some time before perishing. Speaking of which, there is a possible article that could be used for the recent sonar discovery in which David Jourdan (himself a crash and sink theorist) cautions, "It is impossible to identify anything from a sonar image alone as sound can be tricky and the artifact could be damaged in unpredictable ways altering its shape. For that reason, you can never say that something is (or isn’t) from a sonar image alone,~~ 92.17.199.182 (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess she might have had a caption premonition? Who knows....perhaps it was just a false alarm. And yes, very sad there was no cake. But your arguments all look pretty sound to me. [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Amelia Earhart talk

I have taken my above paragraph to the Earhart talk page. It appears there is a discussion to split the article regarding the "vanishing" section. ~~ 92.17.199.182 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. That's the best place for it! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

13 Rivers

Phew, what an album.... "with songs that stick close to a vision of darkness, gloom, and noise." No-one else can really play like Thompson. He just seems to get better and better. "Her Love Was Meant for Me". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

February music

story · music · places

My calendar story today is about Michael Herrmann celebrating his birthday. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Today I am happy about a singer on the Main page (at least for the first hours), after TFA the same day last year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. An interesting range. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

you made my day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

And mine too, for proving my point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Well I am very glad to hear it! I had no idea, as I can honesty say... I am not really a Dedicated Follower of DYK! [4]. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Which point, proved how? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's the wonderful Planxty, featuring the amazing Liam O'Flynn (1945–2018): "The Jolly Beggar" (Child ballad 279). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

thank you, some other day: Seiji Ozawa died, and I remember Haydn's Die Schöpfung, dress rehearsal in Tanglewood, as if it was yesterday. Kathleen Battle. Chorus all in white and singing from memory. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, three days ago. A famous family. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

When I made today's story I was sure Alfred Grosser would appear on RD today, which may happen or not but I go to bed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to Seiji Ozawa. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

... and today a woman and her views --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Saw your name in the ITNN candidates, where I have (again) one lingering on the last day - could you check if you can support Rudolf Jansen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't me, honest. Just one of my socks with the same name... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Now posted, I see. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, 4 minutes before midnight. - The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Listen to music from Ukraine if you like, - I heard it in 2022, and the November concert (at a different church) raised a truckload of winter clothes. My story today is also from my life: I heard the singer in 3 of the 4 mentioned musical items. I sang in yesterday's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Amazing singing. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

They had to rearrange and adjust to the "cruel" situation of two altos and men, because many sopranos couldn't travel because there husbands were drafted and they had to serve the family. - Today's story celebrates a woman's birthday. She sat right in front of me when I took the picture at a lovely concert, celebrating her son's 60th. I thought she was 90 today, - no, 91 already. You can listen, starting at the piece he dedicated to her, Op. 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that about the cruel situation - it certainly worked out well. Ah yes, Rossini. You can't beat a bit of "shooting an apple off the head of your son Walter in a single attempt", can you. If he was alive today he'd only be 58! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

;) - did you listen to the Kyrie with the rhythm that stays with you fo the rest of the day? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Tin-foil hatter

Now, look where your seeking to engage with that tin-foil hatter on the Paula Vennels talkpage has got us to. They are now leaving Banning Notices on my Talkpage! Have you sorted your maths yet? KJP1 (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, yes.... the contagion seems to be spreading. DYK..... that King Charles III is really a giant reptile? Yes, maths all sorted thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

A giant reptile, and in an illegitimate marriage. And me a sock puppet of Ghmyrtle. Who knew. KJP1 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I hear Windsor Register Office will do salamanders, on a Thursday, if you slip them a few quid. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice usage of edit summary just now

I like it when folks swing their elbows widely. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That old Glasgow idiom springs to mind.... "ye cruisin' for a bruisin', laddie!" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You is.... rockin' like a Ninja, stingin' like a bee! (but don't quote me on that...) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Damo

Whaaat?[5] Ceoil (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I was in the middle of redrafting. I don't think the article is long enough to warrant that degree of duplication in the lead. Oh well, whatevs. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Your right, but am working towards expanding the main body. As always, could really use your help here Martin. Ceoil (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Gimme an hour or two, and then might ask for you egale eyes. ps, having been ispired during talk chit chat with Serial earlier this morning, myself and my brother bought tickers to see these Fall influenced merchants in London in mid march.[6]. Oh boy do I love one note music! Ceoil (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

New to me. Are those gladiolis on the mic stand?? lol Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

An obv ref to Steven Patrick, which I think is nice. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

RIP Damo

Damo Suzuki (16 January 1950 – 9 February 2024): "Spoon" (1971). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also "Paperhouse" from Beat-Club (also 1971).

Lets not forget poor Malcolm: Father cannot Yell, December 2017. Note the two bass players :) Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Best track on Ege Bamyasi? For me it's always "I'm So Green". A real groove. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Only discovered this during the week Dizzy Dizzy...it takes a while to get going but that is some seriously controlled funk. Maybe they didn't afterall completely loose it after Suzuki quit. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Another favourite! At their best at that time, in my view. Soon Over Babaluma and Landed both great. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yerkes Observatory

Second-Largest refracting tele. Fact check lens size of Swedish 1-m Solar Tele —which is larger. Classact1000 (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You might want to ask at Talk:Yerkes Observatory? I've never seen that article before. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Church of St Basil, Bassaleg

You can do these yourself, you know! KJP1 (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Oooh... impressive! And well done. I won't even check it for coyvio. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It could almost certainly do with a check for typos etc. It is also rather "thin". And it's a pity that we don't seem to have a photo of the Morgan Chapel. But it's a Start. KJP1 (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a very good start! I'll try and make some tiny pedantic "improvements". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Which reminds me, about five years ago!, we said we'd do something about Tredegar House. For one of Wales most important country houses, it's a pretty poor article. Shall put it back on the to-do list. KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Stereo MC's

My present health state, and age (probably more the latter), means that I struggle to concentrate on matters for more than a few minutes. I wonder if you might have some interest in this outfit - if so, there has been a new, single purpose editor cutting a swathe through the article with editing comments such as "actual details incorrect and members incorrect . Incorrect place band formed , incorrect details how gee street was started incorrect description of band members".

I have not the time to investigate all those 'incorrect' amendments, but I did look long enough at Martin Strong's publication to note that he states the band formed in Clapham, not Brixton. Needless to say the editor does not supply any reference(s) to back up his claims. If you have the time and inclination, of course. Thanks - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Derek. I'll try and take a look. I see that Strong's The Great Rock Discography is available on line, but with no preview. But I see his 1996 The Wee Rock Discography also says Clapham. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I should, perhaps, have made it clearer that I possess my own print copy of Strong's tome. So if you need to check anything there, I would be able to help. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I thought you might. By all means add a comment, if you want, to the Talk page thread, just to confirm it also says Clapham on page 935 of Strong (2000)? (I mean, this might be a POV thing, as Brixton and Clapham are right next to each other anyway? - it might have been at the Hope and Anchor, or anywhere on Acre Lane! Maybe Threesie has some ideas on that....?) But I think we can agree it wasn't in Nottingham. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Nick seems to be a generally helpful editor, so maybe we can resolve some of his issues with the article. I suspect we may be short of WP:RS sources, that he will find frustrating. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Quite probably. This is not the first time that I have had/witnessed correspondence with 'pop' musicians, but given the world of hype that they live in, they do seem to struggle with the notion of editing guidelines. Many thanks for your efforts so far. I have dug out Colin Larkin's The Virgin Encyclopedia of Popular Music - Concise Edition, pp. 1135/6, 1997 - ISBN 1-85227-745-9, which may prove useful moving forward, although I am loathe to make editing changes until and when Nick returns. The 'Concise Edition' is a misnomer - it weighs in excess of 6lb (don't know how much, as my wife's kitchen scales only go up that far) and makes my Collins English Dictionary look positively slimline. Regards, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a true heavyweight of a source. I wouldn't wait any longer than you want to. Nick has made it clear that he understands how editors work here. And, in any case, he said a month, but these rockstars have a habit of jetting off all over the shop, don't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they are rather prone to - although Nick is 63 now, surely a bit late to be "'aving it large" ?! Anyhow, just for an update, I have edited Stereo MC's as far as I intend to at this juncture. Also I have effected some changes at the associated articles for Gee Street Records, Cath Coffey (sister of Costa), and Brit Awards 1994. Do we now wait and see ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess we can just wait, yes. Not Denise, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

737 MAX Editorializing

Wrong venue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please examine the up-to-date information I have referenced in the talk page for the 737 MAX. It is factually incorrect in 2024 to imply that the Ethiopian and Indonesian crashes were purely caused by MCAS. Leaving out information that was discovered in the crash investigations and court cases does a disservice to readers. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:2826:EC6A:8140:2117 (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC) You are edit warring, so I've added a warning to your talk page. If you persist, you are likely to be blocked. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC) I really, really hope you see that it is wrong to block someone for simply trying to correct factually incorrect information. Please examine the information I have included in the talk page. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:2826:EC6A:8140:2117 (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC) You have been invited to discuss your edits at Talk:Boeing 737 MAX. If you simply refuse, and continue to edit war, you'll be blocked. Possibly indefinitely. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) I started the "Major Updates Needed" topic on the talk page 7 days ago. The information is there for you and other users to reference. It is publicly available information from official, reliable sources. The sentence that you have continued to revert, "In 2019, the Boeing 737 MAX was grounded worldwide after a flight control system caused two new aircraft to crash..." is factually incorrect and my change to "In 2019, the Boeing 737 MAX was grounded worldwide after crashes..." simply removes the factually incorrect information. That requires no new source; the source referenced for that information is incorrect. Please, please help correct the 737 MAX article to remove all instances of editorialization. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:2826:EC6A:8140:2117 (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) No, it's not factually incorrect, it's just a summary. If there had been no MCAS, these two crashes would not have happened and 346 people would not have died. You're meant to wait for consensus at the Talk page BEFORE you repeatedly restore your preferred wording in an article. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Please, please examine the information I've referenced. I understand that many people feel very strongly about these particular crashes, but that should not override plain facts. Both sets of pilots did not follow established standard procedures for a stabilizer trim runaway, this is fact. Investigations from the NTSB confirm that the pilots could have safely flown the planes, regardless of MCAS, if they had followed these procedures. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:2826:EC6A:8140:2117 (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Do you understand that the appropriate venue for discussion is Talk:Boeing 737 MAX, not here? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC) I see you've now been blocked from Boeing 737 MAX. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Heidegger edits

Hi @Martinevans123!

You recently restored chunks of a previous version of Martin Heidegger with the edit description "unexplained removal of sourced content". If you look back through the edit history, however, I think you will find that these are mostly my edits, and that I provided fairly detailed descriptions of non-trivial changes that I made as I proceeded piecemeal through the article (which is how I prefer to edit—in the interest of transparency and so that other editors can revert more selectively where they might disagree). At the same time, I was also active on the talk page with respect to any more general issues that other editors might wish to raise. It's always possible I made some bad calls, but I didn't just delete blocks of content without justification.

In view of this, would you kindly consider self-reverting? And to make your desired changes in a manner that is likewise easier to track? I don't have any strong vision for the article, and I think you'll find me a fairly easy-going collaborator if you intend to do more work on it (and it definitely does still need work—esp. post-BT!) I just find it hard to track what's being changed when so many changes are being made together in a single edit.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @PatrickJWelsh, you mean this edit I made yesterday? Whoever that brand new anon IP was, they could have offered at least two edit summaries? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Mea culpa! I am even worse than I thought at interpreting diffs. I got to this through my watchlist and did not do my due diligence. You were reverting what I thought you were reinstating. That was the right call. I've reverted your self-revert with an edit description explaining that this was a misunderstanding, not a disagreement—and also inviting the IP editor to swing by the talk page if there are reasons to prefer the earlier version.

Thanks for being so gracious about this!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I must admit I was a bit bewildered. No worries. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC) "I wanted a woman, never bargained for you"!

Lyndsay Hoyle (Speaker) lead

Hi, can you please explain why you removed important citation confirming 59 MPs have signed no confidence EDM in the lead? Please consider reinstating urgently. Thanks "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy states that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lindsay-hoyle-commons-gaza-ceasefire-vote-latest-b2500595.html Jaymailsays (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

As per my edit summary, it was in line with WP:LEADCITE. As this is a plain fact, I'm not sure it's controversial or contentious. The material is fully supported, with the same source, in the main body of the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Who is likely to challenge a fact like that? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I was just about to challenge his date of birth but stopped when I saw that it had a handy cite in the lead!?! KJP1 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Errrrm. Well the source I removed still says "60 MPs sign no-confidence motion". So not the best source for this. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC) p.s. it's now 65, which is still only 10% of MPs. And there's no criterion level or agreed procedure for this. Someone would have to place another EDM asking for a vote of no confidence. Hoyle has already apologised to the house twice and he seems to have acted out of a very sincere fear that MPs are in danger of reprisals if they don't get an opportunity to have their say. A re-run of the debate is still a possibility

Sure - I wasn’t questioning the removal, just why somebody felt his DOB with a matter of sufficient controversy to warrant a cite in the lead. As to the shameful goings-on at Westminster, I think it’s pretty wounding for Hoyle. When was the last time a Speaker was faced with a No Confidence motion supported by 60+ MPs? Bercow? I don’t think even he faced that, and he was a hell of a lot less popular than Hoyle. KJP1 (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I think a lot of editors add the source for date of birth to the opening line of the article to save putting it in the infobox. I tend to try and put it next to an entry in "Early life". Not sure what Wiki policy says about this. Yes, compared to Bercow, Hoyle is much more respected on both sides of the house. Ben Wallace tweeted: "I have served under three speakers. Lindsay Hoyle is head and shoulders above the rest. He is fair, kind and a protector of back benchers. He is not a bully nor a grandstander nor pompous. He has my full support." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The date of birth should be cited in the body, then lead and infobox need no cite. Generally: The lead should only cite quotations and facts that only appear in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's the time of the year

More leeks than the UK Border Force!!

For this and this. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah! So THAT'S what's occurin'! Thanks for the reminder. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if people meet Ruth Jones and are surprised to find that she doesn't look a bit like Nessa.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I often sees er down the slots, but she just ruddy blanks me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Happy St David's Day, from Tony and I! KJP1 (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

And about time, too! What took you so long? "Dydd Gŵyl Dewi Hapus", as they say in Ystradgynlais!! The cheque's in the post... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Middle name David. Due St David's Day 1948, arrived 3 days early. Never happened since. Good to see the copyvio project is completed; largely thanks to KJP1. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Tony! (That £100 Ann Summers voucher is on it's way! I won't tell anyone, honest.) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

How did you know? :o( Tony Holkham (Talk) 17:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if leeks can be winnowed (probably not), but I'm happy to see that winnowing fan at KJP1's talk. Yippee! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

You too could have enjoyed multiple discount vouchers for the top Oxford Street stores ... and a year's subscription to riveting current affairs podcasts. It's a bit late now!! But thanks, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Contributor copyright investigation closed which has thankfully become Gerda's Floral News Stand!

Hello, this is a notification that the Contributor Copyright Investigation (CCI) that was opened into you has been finished, and the relevant pages have been courtesy blanked by an administrator or clerk. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

KJP1 did about half of the checks on his own, so deserves special thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

What a relief! On Smetana's 200th birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad to say it was a day earlier, on Saint David's Day! But I'm sure Smetana would have been over-joyed either way. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

sun&clouds pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

in memory of the birthday of a friend who showed me art such as this, and of Vami --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

on vacation, have something sweet - DYK that I invented 2 comments per discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ;) - Rossini's Petite messe solennelle was premiered on 14 March 1864, - when I listen to the desolate Agnus Dei I think of Vami. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for the links, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's Luca Sestak with Solfeggietto. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Where? - Today, my story is a piece dear to my heart, still in memory. When I sang it first, a friend was in the audience with her husband who knew he was to die soon. She played a tape from the performance for his funeral. I may have told you before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think you told me before. That's very touching. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! - I uploaded vacation pics (from back home), at least the first day, - and remember Aribert Reimann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Next day, around Porto da Cruz, on Bach's birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, JS! "Was mir behagt ist nur die muntre Jagd" (Ellen McAteer, soprano) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

a few new pics, and two people for DYK --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

still a few more (same day), a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration - do you think Pollini is ready for RD? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Pollini looks pretty polished to me. Here he is playing a Chopin nocturne. Just utterly wonderful. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and also for your click to Easter. Good to see three in a row for RD that we nominated. I have two more noms open in case you want to support ;) - listening to the Passion - still moving four years later. 31 new pics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I listen to Bach's St John Passion today a second time, now with chorus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Last news here: 2 days later in time, a different music, - Happy Easter listening! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Dave Myers (presenter)

On 2 March 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Dave Myers (presenter), 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. PFHLai (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, PFHLai. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Lord Lucan discussion

I don't know, given your helpful work on the various Savile articles, if you have done anything on the Lord Lucan case, but in light of a recent article that notes a new possibility that the wife may have been overlooked as a suspect, I wonder if you know how I should have phrased the paragraph about it, or how the article should reflect her version of events, which has generally been accepted as fact. I hasten to add I am not casting aspersions on the late Lady Lucan's character.~~ 80.43.251.32 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, the famous DJ and charity fundraiser, bless him. My "work" on the Savile articles has been quite minimal. If I ever edited anything at John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, it must have been via one of my less successful sockpuppets, who has since vanished without trace. If I ever manage to see the connection between these two luminaries of British culture, I may even be tempted to have a look. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC) p.s. wasn't Lord Lucan stolen by the IRA?

also "vanished without trace" Wait, what? You were Lord Lucan all along? This is very disappointing Martin, but trilling too. Your the head off 1984 Freddie Mercury. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, yes, I admit it. Me and Freedie did used to swap hot tache tips. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, ps I loved you at Live Aid. Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "Hammer to Fall" was a real hit, wasn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Its all the rage at the moment, so have declared your COI on the Queen talk page. Ceoil (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Hopefully no one will ever notice. By the way, that deffo wasn't me editing, as the anon IP from Outer Mongolia, over there! Few people realise that I'm actually 89 these days.... Lucky 123 (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lightnin Slim.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lightnin Slim.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Oi, B-bot! Just mind you own business! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Pigcasso

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Pigcasso, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Monmouthshire coast

Feel entirely free to add to this, extolling the superior quality of the arable land! The difficult bit is finding specifically Monmouthshire sources. Since the growth of Newport, both east and west, that tends to dominate, e.g. Newport Wetlands. I suspect it will also be a difficulty when describing the wildlife under Biodiversity. KJP1 (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Nah. As you knows, I'm just a lowly Newport lad. Not one of you posh "Shire brigade". lol. Concrete jumble, nothing in order, not far from the border! [7] Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I've managed to drop in a mention of Tregrug Castle. I knew there was a purpose to your creating that article. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It looked so nice in 1793! Needs a bit work now, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Your addition to Murder of Brianna Ghey has been removed or altered, as it appears to closely paraphrase a copyrighted source. Limited close paraphrasing or quotation is appropriate within reason, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. However, longer paraphrases which are not attributed to their source may constitute copyright violation or plagiarism, and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Such content cannot be hosted here for legal reasons; please do not post it on any page, even if you plan to fix it later. You may use external websites or printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If you own the copyright to the text, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the copyright but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please do not restore text that contains a copyvio/CLOP issue to an article without change. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

And how would you rephrase that exactly, without changing the meaning? 22 of those 48 words are in quotes. And what is the purpose of this template warning? You think I'm unaware of your revert, when I have already responded at the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems another editor was able to do it just fine. Restoring a copyvio after it's been removed, and was clearly marked as a copyvio in the edit summary without any modification whatsoever is disruptive. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not regard the original material as "a copyvio". Pasting a huge template warning here, without even suggesting or attempting a re-write is also "disruptive". What's the point of such petty scolding? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I did regard it as a close paraphrase, as did a couple of CCI editors that I reached out to privately. WP:CV is pretty clear that when you're dealing with a copyvio on partial page content, you revert or otherwise remove the violating text. The person making the removal does not have to re-write it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You "reached out to a couple of CCI editors privately"? Thanks so much for your private diligence. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I reached out to a couple of the editors who have a great deal of experience in handling copyright issues at WP:CCI, as I wanted a second opinion on whether or not it constituted CLOP. After they confirmed that it was, I acted in accordance with the copyvio policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Please pass on my thanks to your private experts. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've looked very carefully at the edits, and at the cited source. Honestly, it would not have occurred to me that this edit was an issue, and I'm trying to be very sensitive to close paraphrasing issues. Having direct quotes from those people, presented as direct quotes, is not a problem. What I could agree with to some extent is that, in the first sentence, the two direct quotes also come from a single sentence in the source, although the source does not connect them via the phrase "and that she had shown". The source says: "who had shown". I'm not too bothered by the words "had shown". But I suppose that's it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that the quotes were presented in the exact same order, with the exact same juxtaposition as the source article. Some of that could have been summarised while being left attributed, as was done by another editor. Or other quotations and different juxtaposition from the source could have been used. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Presenting quotes in the "exact same order" is copyvio now? I see. Perhaps you'd like to test this one over at AN/I or something, just to to be sure? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, close paraphrasing is a copyvio issue. If you want to go to ANI over this, we can, but I consider the immediate issue resolved and think it would be unnecessary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, you know, an AN/I mountain always tends to get more eyes than a simple molehill. It's the bit about "Presenting quotes in the "exact same order" as the source" that I can't quite get my head around. It might be a public service for editors on the brink of a block for copyvio? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If you're concerned about avoiding this type of issue in the future, perhaps a discussion at WT:CCI or WT:CP might be more fruitful? The editors who watchlist those talk pages are those most likely to be able to give you good advice on avoiding this issue, as they are the experts in handling this type of problem. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Will they give me good advice or just slap a big template on my talk page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I suspect if you started the discussion something like "Hey, an issue came up recently where another editor warned me about adding and restoring a close paraphrase copyvio to an article. Is there any advice you can give me for avoiding CLOP issues in the future?" then I suspect they will give you good advice. The only thing the CCI editors want to see happen is for people to stop adding copyvios to articles. An easy way to prevent that from experienced editors like all of us present in this discussion is to provide you some educational resources so you can learn how to not make the same mistake in the future. That way everyone wins, Wikipedia keeps a productive editor, and the number of copyvios decreases over time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's also that the quotes were "with the exact same juxtaposition", which I see as more to the point than simply the order in which they appeared. I can agree with that criticism, to some extent. The authors of the source chose to present the two quotes together in that particular way, and it can be argued that you copied that choice. Not block-worthy in my opinion. But something that I hope you can learn from, in terms of good writing style. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, what do original journalists know, heh? We have to try and improve on their choices? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not about improving on their choices. It's about not copying their choices, improvement or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

And if one considers their choices convey exactly the meaning intended? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

FFF conveyed the exact meaning, without copying the way that the authors chose to convey it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm no longer sure about that. The authors chose to use exact quotes. I think FFF's edit was an improvement as it was more succinct. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to make a point, one that I am sure of, that isn't simply about being more succinct, although being more succinct is, indeed, a good thing. It's that the choice that the source authors made about juxtaposing two quotes was a sort of "intellectual property". It's not about the meaning of the quotes, either separately or together. It's about one possible choice, out of many other possible choices, of how to present the two quotes. FFF did write in a more succinct way, but also preserved the meaning without copying that one particular choice. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's essentially the issue that I identified. I see it more as a matter of sloppy writing, than of copyvio. It wasn't so much close paraphrasing, as paraphrasing that could have been less close, as it were. I agree that Martin should not have reverted. I also think that your warning here was needlessly confrontational. You could have just as well explained in your own words (irony of my using that phrase duly noted) why you felt that it was a bad edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we can devise an even larger template waring for "sloppy writing, that's not quite copyvio"...private expert advice permitting, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:TROUT. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I prefer the templated options like this, as they typically explain the underlying issue and reference relevant policies and guidelines in a far more direct manner. I find the clarity helps in situations like this, as the templates tend to be unambiguous.

Now had Martin left a message on my talk page, or the article talk page after the first removal, I'd have been happy to explain it there without having to issue a warning. However his first action was to restore the text unmodified. Even leaving aside the fact that Murder of Brianna Ghey is a double CTOP article, when the reversion it crossed the line into being warning worthy. So I issued the appropriate warning for the circumstances. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Martin's very sorry he didn't leave a message on your talk page, perhaps he was too busy responding here. So it's a "double CTOP article"? There may be a few watchers here would might like a further explanation on that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not that you're responding here, I'm happy that you are responding here. The issue is that the first action you took after I removed the text was to restore it without modification. Check the timeline of the edits, I removed the content at 22:28 (UTC), you restored it twelve minutes later at 22:40 (UTC), and I issued the warning here three minutes later at 22:43 (UTC). You can't have been too busy responding here at the time you made the revert at 22:40, as the warning and this discussion didn't start until 3 minutes later. At 22:40, you could have started a discussion either on the article talk page, or my talk page, but you didn't. You chose to restore a copyright violation.

So it's a "double CTOP article"? Yes, as can be seen in the talk page banners on Talk:Murder of Brianna Ghey, the article is covered by both WP:GENSEX and WP:BLP. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

How do WP:GENSEX and WP:BLP relate to my edit? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

They apply to all edits to that page. CTOP require editors to hold themselves to, arguably, higher standards than at pages in general. In this case, the main issue is that you reverted the revert, instead of asking for clarification of why you were reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for higher standards, but I'm really not sure how WP:GENSEX and WP:BLP are directly involved in that quote. I would have thought that to satisfy BLP, an edit would need to follow the original quoted speech as closely as possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

They aren't directly involved in those quotes, but they don't have to be. Those editing restrictions are defined by the topic areas, but they apply to all edits on the page, because the page falls within those topic areas. That's the way these things work. In "contentious topics", editor conduct is held to a high standard (that's different than saying that writing style is held to a high standard), regardless of whether the individual edit was about those topics directly. That's just how this works.

You raise a point that's well-worth examining here, in terms of whether fidelity to the BLP policy requires direct quotes instead of summaries. It doesn't, so "an edit would need to follow... " is not true. What needs to happen is that the edit should not misrepresent what the living person said or believes. That's not the same thing as quoting them word-for-word. FFF's edit correctly represents what was said, without needing to quote it directly. But I'm glad that you raised the issue, because it's a frequent source of misunderstanding about proper and improper paraphrasing. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

When editing an article covered by one or more CTOPs, you need to be very careful that your contributions are policy and guideline compliant. Tensions on these types of articles tend to be fraught at the best of times, as they are often dealing with highly contentious topic matter. Whenever content you add to an article is reverted by an editor in good faith, even if you fundamentally disagree with that reason, the best option is always to start a talk page discussion. Maybe the person who reverted you made an error as we're all (hopefully) only human, maybe they had reasons you don't understand or an understanding of a policy or guideline you weren't aware of, or maybe there's a consensus against a certain piece of content appearing in an article. Regardless of the cause, the best option is to start a talk page discussion, and not immediately restore the challenged content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't regard it as a copyright violation. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither do it, but reverting a revert under CTOPs is best avoided. Fraught tensions, yes, indeed. Sigh. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, you are free to hold that opinion, just as I and other editors are free to hold the opinion that it is a copyvio. You are also fine to express that opinion in a discussion about the issue, as you are doing here. What is not fine however is that you restored that content without making any changes and without starting any discussion whatsoever. Had you presented it in a different way, as Firefangledfeathers did, or had you started a discussion either on my talk page or the article talk page, I wouldn't have had cause to issue you with a warning. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Gosh, you have it all timed to perfection, it seems. But we still seem to have a difference of opinion over whether that really was "a copyright violation"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sideswipe, you may prefer templates, but the unarguable fact is that you selected a template that concludes with a bold-font warning about blocking. Please consider what Martin has dealt with, on Wikipedia, over that past year. He has successfully appealed an indefinite block, and worked very hard at cleaning up the CCI. I would have hoped that you would have recognized how that template warning would sound, in this context. I don't blame Martin for reacting defensively. I would have reacted that way, were I in his position. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, and I'll consider it if this comes up again. However, I would also query whether someone was previously indefinitely blocked for a CCI issue should be restoring text that was removed in good faith for being a copyvio. My issue isn't that Martin is acting defensively in this discussion, as you say it's perfectly understandable in the circumstances. My issue is that rather than start this discussion his first action after the content was removed was to immediately restore it without any modification whatsoever. Even if he fundamentally disagrees that it's a copyright violation, and he is well within his rights to have that opinion, an editor who has been indeffed for copyright violations in the past should know better than to do that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have any rights to have opinions on copyright any more. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

And yet you acted on that opinion when you reverted the removal. As I've said a couple of times now, I would have been perfectly happy to discuss the issue had you started a talk page discussion either on my talk page or the article. I'm always happy to explain the reasoning behind my edits. I'd have also been happy if you'd presented a modified version of the text without the CLOP problem. But the issue is that you didn't start a discussion, nor did you present a different version of the text, you simply restored the removed content without any modification. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for understanding that. Perhaps you might want to consider what I wrote at WP:KNIT#Dealing with it. I wrote that about a different context, but the idea of looking for the best way to de-escalate is a useful one for a situation like this. Really, you could have communicated to Martin that he should stop reverting, without implying that his indef might be reinstated. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the specifics here, M123, I'd love to see you avoid re-reverting when copyvio issues are brought up, even if you disagree with their merit. You could have made your case at the talk page. I love having you back around, and I'd rather see you play it on the safe side. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not regard the original material as "a copyvio". I'd be happy to see as many second opinions (in public, not in private) as you like. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't a copyvio. It's a matter of opinion as to whether it was close paraphrasing. FFF's version is significantly better writing than yours, Martin, in the way that it says that she commended her bravery. That's a summary of what the quote was, instead of the quote itself. In my opinion, that's an improvement in this case. You should not have reverted, once you had been reverted, but I can see how the revert of your edit landed, emotionally. Let's all agree that FFF made a good improvement, and I hope that we can all lower the temperature now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If I didn't expect my edits to be improved by other editors, I'm really not sure I'd be able to make many edits at all. My sincere thanks go to Firefangledfeathers for the obvious improvement, which might just have happened without all the warnings and discussion? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

For reference
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BBC source: Murdered teenager Brianna Ghey's mother has met a parent of one of her daughter's killers, five weeks after they were sentenced for murder. Esther Ghey said she felt a "connection" to Scarlett Jenkinson's mother, Emma, who had shown "a great deal of bravery." "Both of us are mothers trying to navigate something that nobody should ever have gone through," she said. First attempt: On 11 March 2024 Esther Ghey met Emma Jenkinson, the mother of Scarlett, saying she felt a "connection" to her, and that she had shown "a great deal of bravery". She added, "Both of us are mothers trying to navigate something that nobody should ever have gone through." Adjusted edit: Esther Ghey met Jenkinson's mother in March 2024. Ghey commended the other mother's bravery and said that "Both of us are mothers trying to navigate something that nobody should ever have gone through." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Eric Carmen

RIP Eric Carmen (August 11, 1949 – March 2024). "Overnight Sensation (Hit Record)" (lead guitar: Wally Bryson). "I don't need no reputation And I'm not in it for the show" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC) p.s. [8]

Punch Bowl Inn

Hello! I see that you edited Punch Bowl Inn on 5 March to say "It was demolished in June 2021 with the required planning permission...", and to my understanding that's the very opposite of what happened. I just wanted to check before I edit this - was this a simple typo (easily done!), or have I misunderstood the situation here (also easily done!)? Thanks, CLW (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Typo. Now fixed. Well spotted. Thanks for telling me. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Steve Harley

RIP Stephen Malcolm Ronald Nice (27 February 1951 – 17 March 2024): "Judy Teen" (1974). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Steve Harley

On 20 March 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Steve Harley, 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. Schwede66 17:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, Schwede. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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

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

Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Didn't even know it was a dispute! I have commented. Whenever I see DRN, for some reason I think of drains. Sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Nor did I! Remind me again, are we somehow now sworn enemies? If so...damn you, damn you to hell! Bloody Welshman! Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Errrrrm.... "Feinian Wiki Bogtrotter!"® (Will that do? CBA TBH) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

By the way.... "As with Dylan, Thompson's singing is something of an acquired taste" But occasionally he writes a song that's right in the middle of his range, and he can truly belt it out: "Her Love Was Meant for Me"! a real gutsy barnstormer..! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"Fenian Bogtrotter" sounds quite romantic, have had worse insults, and not by people who know 13 Rivers. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You ought to check out Alice Roberts' Desert Island Discs. Some cool tunes. Quite a rocker! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [9]

Happy 75th Birthday, Richard Thompson! [10] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) oops!

OGWT 7 March 1975. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ha!

[11]

DMacks (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems they really were needed. Probably about 20 years ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

True that. DMacks (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

At least the emergency services don't have to deal with any melted clocks or burning giraffes... Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Giraffe bridge-accident?[12] DMacks (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Haha, how very bizarre! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: Revert of Francis Scott Key Bridge

Adding the year to any date causes no harm, improves clarity, and is suggested by various Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:DATE. And I'm sure you know what "assume" means. Would you please consider undoing your revert. The Wikipedia Community thanks you. Truthanado (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It adds two wholly unnecessary words? We must assume that the average reader has a modicum of common sense and working memory? By all means undo my edit, if you must. I will not revert again. But I fear others might. And please give my kind regards to The Wikipedia Community. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not undo another user's revert. I ask them to do it, as I have in this case.

FYI ... If someone told you that the opening ceremony of the 2020 Summer Olympics was on 23 July, would you know that the opening ceremony actually was on 23 July 2021? Including the year can be very important. Truthanado (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

We're not discussing the 2020 Summer Olympics, we're discussing an event that has just happened?? The sentence in question starts: "Dali had previously travelled from Panama to the U.S., arriving in New York on March 19, 2024, ..." what other years could the following two dates possibly refer to? I think your argument is wholly ridiculous. If you don't wish to revert, by all means raise this at the Talk page and get other opinions. (But thanks so much for asking). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

... oh and, "As of March 26, it was being chartered by Maersk" might be better written as: "On the day of the accident, it was being chartered by Maersk"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Bravo

How long have you been waiting for this opportunity? MIDI (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably since The Good Ship Dali was launched, covered in rotting donkeys and ants, back in 2015.... lol Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Dali!. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

"A feel the bridge swayin'!!" Yay!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Daniel Kahneman

On 29 March 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Daniel Kahneman, 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. Stephen 02:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Stephen. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases was a real game-changer. A great work. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Gerry Conway

RIP Gerry Conway (11 September 1947 – 29 March 2024). The first time I heard him play was on the title track of the 1973 Fairport album Rosie. Still have my copy of the Island single. Saw him play at Cropredy many times. [13] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

That is a beautiful, forlorn track. Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, one of my all time Fairport favourites. Who knew Swarbrick could really sing. It's just wonderful. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC) .. backing vocals by two ladies called Sandy Denny and Linda Peters and guitar by some Thompson guy..

I wasn't aware of Linda Thompson. Boy do I like Richard & Linda Thompson - Dimming of the Day (live 1981), esp the way the organ is following the vocal line, but slightly behind. Song is totally going into my heavy rotation. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you'd think "Dimming of the Day" was trad. arr. R. Thompson. But no, he just wrote it. Don't see him playing banjo very often these days! Am guessing that's John Kirkpatrick on concertina. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

One of the finest ever musical duos. She lost her voice as a result of spasmodic dysphonia and is about to release an album of other people singing her songs called Proxy Music! [14]. I Want to See the Bright Lights Tonight was one of the best albums of 1974. If you want to hear song-writing genius, try "The Great Valerio": [15] Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

On this first day of April, it occurs to me from reading Martin's talk page, that being a musician must be very dangerous. They keep dropping dead. (Of course, there's the odd dead neuroscientist on my talk page from time to time, but then again, all neuroscientists are odd.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Oi! Just watch out, gorgeous! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC) And if you thought my inventory was suspicious, just go check out Gerda's!

story · music · places

Thank you for support for Copland, and please keep watching. I think the key to the revert may be found on Vivaldi. - A few more pics, now from back home --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't decide ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

On Copland infobox?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

that's an interesting proposal, mention 3 key works and then say "more", only I'd have trouble to name top 3 by Mozart, and I also saw that little "more" only at the second glance, - what do you think? The history of that infobox is quite unusual: removed with the Bildersturm in 2010, it was implemented again in 2017, and three years later came this short little exchange still on the talk, when a user had noticed that the formal consensus-making had been omitted in the process, and my generous friend Jerome Kohl - long live his memory! - who had reverted many infoboxes personally wrote the words that are music in my ear: "Gosh! That was three years ago", and left it at the other's discretion. That song a few more times, and we could close the sad chapter which has ruined editor relations, - worse than just wasted times. - Back to the undecidedness: no. I meant which portrait of the Hildegard sculpture to select, so I presented all three, taken just before listening in the church she had founded to music she had composed. - Today's story mentions weapons ;) - I love the irony to be presented in the next DYK set. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I like to see Appalachian Spring on the Main page today (not by me as you will know, just interested and reviewed), and I also made it my story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

As it happens, Hildegard's Physica is on the Main page today, and Marian Anderson as my top story (by NBC, 1939). Below (on my talk) three people with raised arms, - and the place is the cherry blossom in Frauenstein. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

... and I have 2 ITNN noms that need reviews, one urgently --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Kalevi Kiviniemi looking very good. Do the "Caprice héroique", hommage à Aristide Cavaillé-Coll and the "Souvenir", hommage à Madame Dupré, need sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your support, and both appeared! Please just keep the page watched, - two more to come perhaps, both shortish at present but I'll see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Very well-written articles, Gerda. Well done. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and the next nominated ;) - plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

My story today is about a piece composed for the Second Sunday after Easter 300 years ago, and I just returned from a (long) opera about the same age, with soprano Pretty Yende --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

relief: the last of six RD articles in one week is now on the Main page - yesterday a great recital with many anti-war songs by Jewish composers whose music was banned by the Nazis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow. I consider myself vaguely productive if I get one on in six weeks...😄 Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel obliged for those in German (because I can read the sources), the women (but all these six were men), and the neglected (too many). You may like to listen to the Dulcinea by Palomo (which takes a while until "music" sets in. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Very Spanish! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

thank you for listening - today's means check a birthday child's evaluation (see my talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

now images of a flock of sheep that I met by chance on the 300th birthday of cantata Du Hirte Israel, höre, BWV 104 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I just uploaded thousands of flowers to thank you for improving Andrew Davis, - the shortest so far from knowing that he died to Main page presentation. Did you watch the video? - How would I describe the weather pictured? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

No thanks needed. Very small tweaks from me. Did I miss the video? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

yes, it seems that you missed the video, - you might watch my top story, and look, and see an external link saying "interview". That's the easy way to not miss tomorrow's as well (and yesterday, there were even two). If not, and I ask about a bio, you may find the way at the article's bottom ;) - and yes, thanks are never needed but I like to thank. Very rarely I'd like to have a click for "I dislike this edit". - Did I place enough commas? How would I describe such weather? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, nice video, thanks. Sorry I missed the sheep. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you see them now? The music to go with them is - you guessed it - at the bottom of the cantata article (which I would have liked to see on OTD today (premiered 23 April 1724), but the team their seems on vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Errrrmm... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

not me, bäääh - every time I type "not lost" I think of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

today's turned into entertainment (yt at the bottom of his article) -- the latest pictures capture extreme weather (or how would you describe it?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I have again a rather sad story on the Main page, - yesterday's double bass story was more fun. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

for the finale: today you can look at the last three stories or "music" on my talk: the same topics, Youth Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine, Samuel Kummer and (pictured) one row of 8 double basses and another of 5 bassists ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Well you know what they say.... "all the right articles, in all the right places"! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

But is it all about that other bass? [16] --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"Eat 'ur heart out, Reverend Al" lol. Interesting arrangement. First Talking Heads and now talking fish... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I can talk, but I really can't sing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon. If I do find her, I'll be sure to let you know. I haven't yet checked behind the shed... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 Are you by any chance a media reporter professionally? Also, your suggestion, "I haven't yet checked behind the shed...," seems to imply something vulgar. Nevertheless, as a child, I won't overthink it. Just to inform you, based on exclusive revelations from insiders, she won't be returning to public duties as before until her medical team advises in that direction. Looking forward to our future collaborations. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I see. "... exclusive revelations from insiders"? Wikipedia is so glam these days. But so sorry no, no chance. And not that vulgar. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You expected to find William also most probably and even better, another man, maybe. Anyways, I am a child and would leave this conversation here and now itself. Have a great day. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe just rough sleeping under the hedge? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Please be clear with what you have to say. What does Kate Bush have to do with Catherine?Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you become acquainted with Catherine and the royal family only recently? I have been hooked onto them since 2019 when I was not even a decade old. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Note to self: please be clearer. I'd hardly claim that I was acquainted with either of the Kates. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 Inquiring about your acquaintance with Catherine was to ascertain your familiarity with publicly available information about her, including gossip. I'm confident that none of the adults here have millionaire partners, nor are they publicly recognized. It's improbable that anyone here has dated or married someone like Catherine, if not her. Moreover, I intend to leave this platform soon for a better life in the real world. As I'm quite young and approaching my teenage years, with adulthood on the horizon, I'm eager to hear your perspective on this. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend a move to the real world. You might even date or marry someone like Catherine! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes @Martinevans123. By the way, do you reckon Charlotte will ever take after her mum in terms of looks? Will she turn out to be a brunette like her or a blonde like her father and brothers? Have a great day ahead. Signing off and regards from MSincccc (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You can't trust Apple

At least that is what the United States says. They own Park Place and Boardwalk. Maybe we can add more information to it? Awesome Aasim 23:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Big Apple. Who knew! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The Bigger (or maybe lesser) Apple which is now one of the most valuable companies in the world got into a similar pesty situation back at the beginning of the end. Nah, I'll just stick to those robotic phones in buildings lined with glass. Or maybe lined with $. And probably the biggest Apple. I don't know. Awesome Aasim 02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Not forgetting the groovy Scouse one: [17] Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC) get back... (Billy appears at 1:35!)

April 2024

I've removed content from Gerry Conway that was a blatant paraphrase of this bio. You might want to demonstrate that you're learning what is acceptable paraphrasing by cleaning up Poor Murdered Woman as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, David. I guess you mean Gerry Conway (musician)? I wonder how much of the overlap detected by Earwig at Poor Murdered Woman is due to direct quotation? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I've re-written the passage at Gerry Conway, but if you think the paraphrasing is still too close you may wish to remove it again, or perhaps suggest possible alternative text. It seems nomination of articles at WP:ITN/RD may not receive the appropriate level of checking for possible copyvio? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

As you will probably have seen, Diannaa flagged up a potential problem with a portion of the lyrics at Poor Murdered Woman, and removed them as a preventative measure. But she did not mention any further problems with possible copyvio. If you judge that any portions of the article are in breach of copyright, I would be very grateful if you could remove them, or highlight them in some way, so that a re-write can be attempted. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Martin, I made some further revisions on the Conway page, although I'm not sure how much of an improvement my edit was.

I've been thinking about this issue, and an idea occurred to me for something that I hope might be helpful to you. It occurs to me that you have been approaching these edits sort of like reporting what the sources say. Of course it's true that we require our content to faithfully reflect what the sources say, but there's a subtle distinction that I'd like to point out to you. There's a difference between reporting what the sources say, and writing content that is based accurately on the information in the sources. If you approach it in the latter way, instead of the former, I think that will help. So if, for example, you write content about Conway, you should be writing some new (original) text, while making sure that every fact you claim is backed up by the sources. That's not the same thing as telling the reader what the reader would see if the reader went to the source and read that. That may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but I feel like if you keep that distinction in mind, it will help you a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. I wasn't really expecting an appraisal of my re-write from David. Although it seems like he didn't intend to revdel the first version. If you have any suggestions of where there is unacceptable paraphrasing at Poor Murdered Woman, I'd be very grateful. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I looked at the Earwig test that David ran, and here is a refined version, looking just at the most probable source: [18]. (The source: [19].) First, I'll point to some things that are obviously not problems, because they are just phrases that don't lend themselves to rewording, and are merely brief bits of a few words: "Rev. Charles J. Shebbeare, at Milford, Surrey", "Mr. Fairs, a brickmaker of Leatherhead Common", and "The Albion Country Band, No Roses". And likewise for phrases from the lyrics of the song, which I take to be public domain. None of that is a problem.

So here are some passages that I do think need to be fixed:

1. "a true story, the actual events of which were reported in The Times on Tuesday 14 January 1834."
2. "and reissued on the compilation albums"
3. "in the original album's sleeve notes"

Now, that said, after looking very carefully, I think it's a lot better than what it looked like at first glance. That's because the extensive passages picked up by Earwig are actually direct quotes from commentators, that are fully identified and sourced as such on the page, such as the block quote at the end of the Background section, and the quote from the sleeve notes in the first bullet point of the Recorded versions section. There's nothing wrong with any of that, and honestly, I don't think anyone would have brought it up, except for the fact that you are, understandably, under close scrutiny. But, the situation being what it is, I think you can revise #1–3 that I listed. Let me know when you do, and I'll be happy to check it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, close scrutiny. I think I might have to preserve that very over-used two-word phrase "The Times" intact. If only the article was in US English, I might even manage "January 14, 1834, which was a Tuesday". I'll let you know... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [20] (Herman Yorks on saxophone)

... "in the original album's sleeve notes"? That's copyvio? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

No, but it's overly close paraphrasing. Think of another way to identify which album it was. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Just for context, the source has:

"Martin Carthy sang Poor Murdered Woman on his 1968 album with Dave Swarbrick, But Two Came By, and reissued on the compilation albums This Is... Martin Carthy and A Collection. Martin Carthy commented in his original album's sleeve notes:"

The current text is:

"* 1968, Martin Carthy (guitar, vocal) and Dave Swarbrick (mandolin), But Two Came By, Topic Records. It also appears on the compilation albums: This Is... Martin Carthy (1971), A Collection (1999), and Essential (2011). Carthy comments in the original album's sleeve notes:"

Maybe I should use "liner notes", as that provides a direct link to the appropriate article. Perhaps I could put "Carthy comments in the liner notes for his 1968 album:", although that does repeat the year.

And "On Tuesday 14 January 1834, the events related in the story were reported in The Times." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of "liner notes", but I like it. Using the year was what I was hinting at, so I support that change too. I'm not bothered by the repeat.

I think your revision of #1 is also an improvement. I think it can be further improved by making it into two sentences. Something like: "On Tuesday 14 January 1834, an actual murder was reported in The Times. The song lyrics appear to have been based on that." You could perhaps improve on my second sentence in terms of attribution. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah thanks. But you're too kind. I'm meant to be "demonstrating that I'm learning", remember. Maybe we need to check with David first. It's a surprise to get a post here for the first time in 17 years. Maybe "mentoring can't solve this" and I don't even deserve to be in main space? Glad to hear you're "not bothered by the repeat". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you should feel free to make these edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Have now adjusted. Thanks for your constructive help and support, which is always much appreciated. Not sure I yet feel as free as Roger did in Tommy, but still. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) (...as Jean-Jacques Burnel from The Stranglers once said, "Wikiman is born free, and everywhere he is in chains". "sob")

Asiana Airlines Flight 214

Looks like we disagree on something. I understand your point about this event occurring 11 years ago but I feel like when we state, "At the time", that makes the reader think that it no longer is a reliable aircraft. Maybe instead of saying, "At the time, the Boeing 777 had a good reputation for safety", we can rephrase it to, "The safety record of the Boeing 777 was favorable then and continues to be so". Eliminating the sentence completely might also be a way to end this conflict. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Creator. Thanks for your note. The first part is fine, but the second part looks like editorial commentary, tending towards promotion. Best to discuss at Talk:Asiana Airlines Flight 214 as it's very likely other editors may want to consider and possibly comment? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I will copy and paste my claim in the article's talk page and I’ll mention you. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have commented over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

OJ Simpson articles

I wonder if the articles should now treat OJ Simpson "officially" as the killer of Goldman and Brown, going by the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources in serious, in-depth scholarship and journalism. I have raised the discussion on Simpson's talk page.92.17.198.220 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Who knows. OJ's not gonna tell us. But..... why me? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I just presumed that you would know about it a lot, particularly as it is a controversial case and a huge crime one. If you don't, I am sorry. It is just that you were so helpful with the Savile discussions that I thought you could be able to help in some way. Sorry about confusion. 92.17.198.220 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks or asking. Alas, I know very little. I watched clips of the car chase on TV and I decided there and then he was probably guilty. Gloves or no gloves. So maybe a bit biased. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It's pretty obvious that he was the actual killer, but as a matter of WP policy, the content should present it as attributed, such as "according to [cited source], Simpson was the real killer." The fact remains that he was acquitted in the criminal trial. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"... don't look any further" (Warning: features the actual trial gloves) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC) haha, always makes me laugh. still got my original vinyl 12", I'll have you know!

Minor edits

I am probably over fussy on this point, but I wouldn't consider this "tweak" [21] to meet the very strict criteria at WP:MINOR. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Would you like me to self-revert? Or self-revert and re-add as a non-minor? I didn't think the wording "saying she had told authorities false information" was very good, so I thought I was just making a simple improvement to grammar. But having looked again at The Telegraph source, are you able to pin down this phrase to something there? As I am not even sure that I can. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

No objection to the edit: just an 'in principle' thing. And not so egregious that I think a self revert is necessary: just a shot across the bows. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries. But is it a valid reflection of the source? Is it even needed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Or you could just cancel any Talk page discussion as "off topic", of course. Some editors might be "howling" if you did. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Commas

Hello Martin! Yes, quite. Is this documented somewhere? It is driving me redacteding nuts where people who were excellently taught in high school, and I am not being sarcastic there, get on a mission to "correct" stuff in BrE which I believe does not need correcting. I see it so much; it's fine in AmE, sure; it seems to me to be a redacteding horrible overcorrection in BrE. Is it a known and recognized issue? It's a bit like the "that and which" thing which I think is another one where the rules are not the same across the Atlantic.

Or, another option ... I am simply wrong! Wouldn't be the first time. Will not be the last time. Helppppp! DBaK (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

In, American, English, it seems, the more commas, the better, and, one can, use them, as much as, one might, possibly, want to. I had a recent rant at Talk:David Černý#Punctuation (where it hasn't even been agreed which Engvar applies!!) But note that User:SMcCandlish, who is very knowledgeable on MOS, says: "Commas really are not a MOS:ENGVAR matter." I'm still quite confused. (No change, there, then). AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!! etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Oops, thanks ... started reading that, suddenly had strong urge to take some paracetamol and have a nice little lie-down. I'm not absolutely sure that it's not Engvar, but I do get it that SMC knows rather a lot more than I do. Aargh indeed. Aargh, indeed. In 2024 I went aargh. In 2024, I went aaargh ... DBaK (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Something that is Engvar: it's paracetamol over there, but acetaminophen here in the colonies. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Q. Where did all the jungle commas go? A. The parrots ate 'em all. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This keeps coming up, so I guess I'll rough-draft an essay here. A bit disorganized and too long, but it's a start. Nothing is an ENGVAR matter unless it can be shown with reliable sources (on English usage in particular) that something, such as the spelling of colo[u]r, is a consistently documented, invariant rule found more or less universally across a particular variety of English. There actually aren't a whole lot of these points, given the size of the language. (I cannot remember a case of a punctuation matter being one of them, with the sole and very well-documented exception of dropping of "." from contraction abbreviations in British English when the short form begins and ends with the same letters as the full word: "Dr", "St", "Ltd", but "Prof.", "Co." Some news publishers and many bloggers often do it also to the truncation abbreviations, but this is directly countermanded by all British academic style guides and even several of the news ones.) MOS:COMMONALITY is really far more important: it's an actual reader-facing goal, while ENGVAR is little more than an internal dispute-avoidance mechanism. Also important are WP:NOT#BLOG and WP:NOT#NEWS (in particular: "Wikipedia is not written in news style"). A subjective feeling one might have that an uncodified practice might lean one way in one country but the other way in a different place doesn't qualify as an ENGVAR matter, or we'd spend most of our time engaged in pitched ENGVAR-themed "style battles" that mostly could never be objectively resolved. Fighting about such things is what MoS is trying to prevent not encourage. Comma usage varies primarily by publication type, with journalism, marketing, and blogging dropping as many as possible (and more than is actually practical) while academic writing uses many more of them for clarity and precision, especially since most such writing requires communicative precision and has an international audience (as does WP of course, on both counts). Encyclopedic writing is a form of academic writing or at least at the fuzzy border of it.

If one is approaching WP from an "I want to delete every single comma I can possibly get away with removing", then one is not approaching encyclopedic writing with the most appropriate mindset. (Same goes if one's approach is "I want to write as traditionally [insert country adjective here] as possible, according to my perception." MoS's worst disrupter of all time was one of those, though an American-supremacist in that case.) The sensible goal of encyclopedic writing is communicating as effectively as possible to the largest audience (and WP really has the broadest audience in history). We simply don't have a goal of getting maximum possible concision at all costs (WP:NOT#PAPER is also relevant in that regard, and frequently cited against attempts to force unnecessary and unhelpful concision/compression/abbreviation/omission of various kinds). The WP:Use common sense approach is to include any comma by which immediate comprehensibility is improved, even if only slightly and even if only for a subset of readers. It is always going to be the case that encyclopedic writing has more commas in it – still, even after one or another of you denudes it of commas that you don't prefer – than some subset of our readers would like to see. This is a given, since various of the youngest more-or-less-adult users of our language would prefer none at all; their terrible writing can be seen all over social media, usually also missing apostrophes and other punctuation as well as capital letter. The use of a comma after introductory phrases is simply clearer formal writing (instead of marketing or, increasingly, news-style hyper-compression). The sort of writing that drops commas like mad is designed for two things: to be output as fast as possible (to meet news deadlines or for speed of e-content firehosing), and to be as skimmable for keywords as efficently as possible (a goal of advertising, social-media posting, and most journalism, since such material is rapidly eye-scanned by most readers, only for a few seconds, and not read in any detail unless something very firmly grabs someone's attention). Many fiction writers (regardless of nationality) also drop a lot of commas, the more so the more they are trying to ecapsulate casual and contemporary spoken English in their dialogue writing; and of course fiction is also generally read at a fast rate. Encyclopedic material is usually read in some detail and requires more mental parsing (even if we now have user-study proof that readers will navigate to sections of interest rather than read whole articles top-to-bottom in most cases). We take pains to be precise and clear, down to any possibility of misleading nuance or incorrect inference, or even just clumsy structure that forces some readers to struggle to parse it.

It has nothing to do with Americans or North Americans in particular [I learned to read and write in Oxfordshire, as an anecdotal aside], and dropping of the comma you don't like is frequent in American advertising and American newswriting, just as such omission is found in the same sorts of material in the UK and elsewhere. The retention of that comma makes for clearer parsing (by all readers, the more so the more complex or potentially ambiguous the construction), which is why it is more often retained in academic writing regardless of country (though over 100,000 academic journals in publication today, it is not difficult to find some academic material that leans toward journalism levels of comma dropping). Maybe more to the real point here, the presence of a comma in "According to Smith, [claim here]" or "In March 2017, Jones [did whatever]" or "Leaving Alexandria, McNabb moved to [wherever]" is understood by 100% of English readers and there is no dialect in which they are an error. That is, it confuses no one, is mis-parsed by no one, has demonstrable benefits for some (many, actually), and has no cost other than a tiny glyph. Without those commas, the third is easily misparsed as a woman's name "Alexandria McNabb", and the first could easily have a similar effect depending on what came after "Smith" (e.g. "According to Smith Taylor & Francis [did something]"). While the middle example isn't likely subject to such "I had to go back and re-read this sentence again to make any sense of it" problems, the same construction should be used consistently (especially since dropping the comma in one case is apt to confuse various well-meaning people into going on a deletion rampage to enforce a much less helpful consistency in the opposite direction.

Misc. side points: Comma usage also varies noticeably across time, with far more commas (often downright weird ones that serve no apparent purpose) being used typically in Victorian to c. 1920s writing than later, and somewhat fewer used today than around maybe the 1970s. But there is a limit to which commas can be excised without significantly sacrificing clarity, especially to readers who are not 100% fluent (and an argument can be made that this limit was already reached in typical academic writing by around the 1990s at the latest; material from that era reads exactly the same as papers published today, but material from a generation or so earlier is quite different in various ways, and a generation back further it's downright ponderous and often pompous). PS: In my quite frequent reading of 19th-century source material, I find that the former excessive use of commas, of the sort Martin exaggerates above for humour, actually was prevalent more in British than American works of that era. It's also notable that the serial comma (a different comma that some people don't like, and about which people make incorrect ENGVAR claims all the time, and contradictory ones) is nicknamed both Oxford comma and Harvard comma, because it's not particular to either national dialect but to an academic register. I think much of what is going on here, as with some British editors' attempts to get WP to use "eg" and "ie", is an incorrect belief that what they see in various British newspapers, the ones with a style of typographic hyper-compression, is "British style" when it is actually the style of a few British news publishers, and is actually contrary to the advice in major British style guides, which lean more toward academic English, as does the American Chicago Manual of Style. However, this has gotten a bit muddled with the increasingly excoriated Waddingham edition of New Hart's Rules and Butterfield edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage, both of which injected a bunch of "let chaos reign" excessive descriptivism, often failing to actually be style guides at all, by declining in many cases to recommend anything specific any longer when presented with conflicting usages attestable in various recent-ish British publcations, but without regard to publication type/register/genre/audience, or quality/reputation, or editorial control level (which matters more and more with every passing year with the "internetification" of news leading to more direct pushing of content straight from journalists, often foreign contractors, direct to news websites with less and less any editorial supervision, and what little of it remains devoted almost entirely to avoiding factual blunders not to enforcing style; this is why the typo rate in even the most high-profiles newspapers/sites has shot up by an order of magnitude in the last decade or so). These mid-2010s versions of those "style guides" are engaging in a form of false equivalence, treating every occurrence of every variation as if equally preferable/utilitarian. But since those crap volumes came out (and MoS is not based on them in any way, but on the previous 2000s editions), there has been a notable uptick in attempts to get WP to write like UK news writing in particular, in a number of ways, based on untenable ENGVAR claims. It's much like claiming that the often stylistically weird writing of The New York Times and The New Yorker "is" American English, when in reality it's nothing but similar in-house style preferences of two particular commerical entities (in large part for "brand identity" reasons), which don't even have entirely American ownership, staffing or readership. That's all (substituting in the word "British") usually true today of the major UK-headquartered news publishers. PS: I find it curious that DBaK above is complaining about supposedly un-British writing yet used "recognized" with a "z". If that's a deliberate choice to use (or a habit of using) Oxford spelling, then the same preferences would also imply acceptance of both the serial comma and the comma after introductory clauses, since they're also favoured by OUP.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Is "In 1990" an "introductory clause", or just the first two words of a sentence? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's unquestionably the first two words, although those first two words do a different kind of work than do "Well, it's". I just looked at our page on clause, and it made me want to say AARGH (although we might want to check with Santa, or maybe Mrs. Clause, about what to make of it). So I think "In 1990" serves some sort of introductory role at the start of a sentence, but it's one where there is no absolute logical basis for saying that it is, or isn't, just the first two words. Consequently your edit at the Annie Lennox page is a matter of personal preference, rather than absolute right or wrong. I debated whether or not to put a comma after "Consequently". Would have been OK to do so, but not required, so I deferred to what I would guess you would prefer on your talk page.

I think that SM's explanation is an excellent one, and I particularly like the part about "Alexandria, McNabb". Looking at your edit at the Lennox page, none of the comma removals raises such a problem, so I think that your edit was equally "right" as would have been not making the edit at all.

As you know, I'm half American and half human, and I think the commas in this sentence are for the better. Personally, I usually do put a comma after "In 1990" and the like. Eng-var or not, if EEng were in this discussion, he'd say you were a comma chameleon. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"In [timeframe or place]," is one of English's stock introductory dependent (also called subordinate) clauses, along with "According to [source],", "If you ask [name or pronoun]," "Until/After/Before/While/etc. [condition]," and a zillion others. Nothing mysterious about it. Any linguist (or English teacher for that matter, and most of them are not linguists by training but have degress in education and/or literature) will tell you this is a dependent clause. The "It's" in "It's going to rain" is not a clause at all; it's an integral part of the independent (and main, and only) clause that forms the sentence. The "Well, it's" in "Well, it's raining" isn't a clause unto itself; rather, "Well[,]" in this construction (versus something like "I don't feel well" or "My cousin fell down the well" or "They performed well") is also an introductory dependent clause of the same sort we've been talking about (note the typical comma after it), albeit a short one; while the "its" there is again not a clause of any kind unto itself but just a fragment of the independent clause "it's raining". The "As you know[,]" above is another introductory dependent clause; some would write that (and many or even all the rest of them) without the comma after the depenedent clause, but this is not demonstrably helpful to anyone, and is demonstrably unhelpful to many, because it makes the sentence structure harder to parse without having to re-read it and think about what the intended meaning was.

There are some dependent clauses (strings of words that are cohesive semantic units but which do not stand on their own as sentences) which never take a following comma; these usually have "which" or "that" after them (in that role, technically a relative impersonal pronoun but acting semantically as a form of conjunction, though even linguists of English will debate about such definitions). E.g.: "I think that Jenny is too tired to go out"; note how "I think that, Jenny is too tired to go out" would be an error in all dialects (though it's actually a pretty common error among inexperienced writers). The "Jenny is too tired to go out" part is obviously an independent clause (can stand on its own as a sentence), and "I think that" is not a necessary fragment of it (like "It's" is in "It's raining now"), and it does not form a valid sentence on its own. [Well, not with the intended meaning. If I ask "Do you think this, or that?", perhaps pointing to two options on a chalkboard, you could grammatically answer "I think that", probably will stress on the final word, and purely a pronoun use of "that", without a conjunctive function.] So, it is necessarily a dependent clause (and an introductory one); it just happens to be in a form in which commas are not conventional (anywhere, ever). However, "I think Jenny is too tired to go out" is something different; it's two independent clauses ("I think" and "Jenny is too tired to go out" are both valid sentences); there, it's probably two loosely coordinated ind. clauses. [However, the relationship might depend on meaning/emphasis: "I think Jenny is too tired to go out", versus what you think about it, is a different sentiment, with the first part as the main clause, from "I think Jenny is too tired to go out", versus Andrew's energy level, and so on.] That/which/who[se] can also be used to form relative or adjectival clauses, and when/while/before/after/since/until/where/wherever/how/as/like/etc. can be used to form adverbial clauses, but we needn't get into that here.

PS: Some other one-word introductory dependent clauses that generally need commas (despite an example existing in this discussion without one) are "However," "Thus," "Ergo," and "So," (in the thus/ergo sense). If the comma is dropped, the meaning can markedly change: "However, my lost dog found his way home" is a sentence meaning that the dog found his way home and that this is being contrasted with a previous statement like "I accidentally left my dog at the park". But "However my lost dog found his way home" is a sentence fragment indicating "Through whatever means by which my dog found his way home ...". Likewise: "So, your cat won't be lonely" is a sentence meaning "Thus/ergo, your cat won't be lonely" following on some previous statement that purports to lead to this conclusion ("When cat-sitting for you, I'll come over for an entire hour every day"); meanwhile, "So your cat won't be lonely" is a fragment meaning "For the reason/purpose/goal of your cat not being lonely," after which would follow something related to this idea, like "I'll come over for an entire hour every day when cat-sitting for you." In both second cases, the phrases are introductory dependent clauses and should have commas: "However my lost dog found his way home, I'm so glad he's back." An argument can be made that the commas in introcuctory "Thus," and "Ergo," are not strictly necessary since such ambiguity is not usually available with those particular words (though "thus" has some nearly-obsolescent alternative uses like "place it thus", and common mid-clause usage like "... it is thus desirable to ..."). But as noted above, if the comma on an introductory dependent clause that typically takes a comma (i.e. doesn't end with "that" or "which") is omitted in one case "just because you can get away with it" in some particular contextual instance, this is likely to wrongly signal to someone that they should edit the material to strip out all of them "to be consistent", often with results that are directly detrimental to reader experience. It is better to just use them consistently in this kind of writing, both to give readers more clarity and consistency, and to prevent editorial actions that are at cross purposes to each other (or to one another, if you like that phrase better). In this project, we have to keep both numerous readers and numerous other writer-editors in mind, which I suppose is rather unusual.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

How did SMcC know I was aiming for "MoS's worst disrupter of all time"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Heh. You have long way to go to reach that level! It was something to behold.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Sheesh, and I thought I was ranting. But SMcC is on a higher plane, isn't he. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Cut my teeth on a decade of BBSes and Usenet back in the day. And I type faster than professional secretaries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I almost get what you said, Stanton. If only you'd used a few more commas... Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I have to admit, commas do make things a bit more exciting... --ARoseWolf 11:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I was enthralled by Stanton's essay. I'm not sure I could stand any more excitement... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Ikr, it was so big and full of thrilling punctuation. And the wikilink to Oxford spelling at the end was so, ahh, dreamy. --ARoseWolf 11:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I was perilously close to being thoroughly overtaken by an attack of the vapours. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Fear not; I always keep a vial of smelling salts in the watch pocket of my waistcoat.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

In detention

Infinite split. --Trypto-filet-of-fish

• "I promise, to not remove commas, which I don't like, which are not even American, but have been used, for the benefit of, at least, one reader, who might find them useful, in understanding Wikipedia." Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) (p.s. I can confirm that my cat won't be lonely)

  p.p.s. I'd never remove a comma, in any case, "just because I can get away with it", in some particular contextual instance. But if I did remove one and this gave a "wrong signal" to someone, that they should edit the material to strip out all of them "to be consistent", I think that's their problem, not mine. I'm not trying to give any signals to anyone. I'm just trying to reduce punctuation clutter. 😄 Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  "I promise, to not remove...": Should be "I promise, not to remove...". Split infinitive. Now, you, have, to, promise, not, to, pratfall, again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ah yes, American TV at its finest. I often picture you as Snorky. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, if you really want American TV like that, you should see Snooki. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  I was also thinking of Fleegle. But I guess he's too deep. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  If there's anything that TV in the US definitely is not, it's "deep". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  What about film, sir fish-that-tryptos? --ARoseWolf 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I forgot about The Deep (TV series), you riveter. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, ya know.... you've got your Donald and we've got our Boris. But hey, your star is still pulling in the crowds! Probably all just a storm in a G-cup. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wanna trade? Really! Please, please! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Regrettably, The Right Honourable Mr Johnson has now been permanently retired to the Home for Distressed Gentlefolk, at an unknown location in the West Country. But he may be taking bookings for the coming panto season. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC) "King of the World"

  Crinkley Bottom – I love it! My new favorite place name! Do the Soggy Bottom Boys perform there? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Only after a particularly harrowing division lobby. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  An English teacher I know tells me often that commas are more art than science. We have long chats about subtext in dialogue too. Communication can be so difficult - easy to mess things up. I'm sure commas help. Consider this guy who started an RfC and made it so that supports meant removing text and opposes meant including it. Don't think more commas could have saved that one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Master Stanton says: "In this project, we have to keep both numerous readers and numerous other writer-editors in mind, which I suppose is rather unusual." And there's the rub, I guess, as they say in Denmark... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) p.s. I was thinking of moving on to semi-colons next....

  Be careful, you might end up getting a semicolonoscopy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's a game that can't be won. I went through a long period where I decided not to use any commas at all; people complained. In response, I started using commas in a more judicious manner, providing them for the reader on an ad hoc basis. People in the UK complained. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  A "game"!? How very dare you!! ...you know, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  commas are more art than science: Yes, that's the ultimate point I was making. It's artful to add them when they help, and when they form a pattern that overall is helpful (even if in one exact instance the difference might not matter), but not artful either to take a "kill 'em all" approach, or to inject them in constructions where nothing useful happens, as was so often the case in Vicitorian to early 20th-c. writing. I saw something in a 1910s book the other day that came off almosmt as bad as Martin's comma-after-every-word jokes. I don't recall the specifics, but it was along the lines of "Johnson, in his book, Title Here, wrote, of Smith, that his position, in favor of the first of these claims, was (McNabb's evidence, presented in Other Title Here, 1854, notwithstanding) no longer tenable, entirely." And the rest of the material was like that. It felt as if seeing the output of someone trying to write while suffering a series of small seizures.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'll forgive anything in any Victorian book as long as it does not seek to lecture me further on the lip shapes or tusks, or feeding habits or oil value of North Atlantic whales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'd never espouse any "kill 'em all" approach. Most prescriptive grammar, of whichever persuasion, is pretty misguided. But I have a problem with such uses as: "In 1823, she published a novel." What grammatical or other function does that comma serve? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Introductory clause, innit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ah thanks. Now I understand what it means! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC) That Stanton McCandlish is just too clever by half! (Well, by 0.4999recurring, anyway)

  I just did this: [22]. Sound of evil laughter. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ooo err (just a little bit). Martinevans123 (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The Farrell Family

I see you've reverted my edits. Can you provide any evidence that Andy, Owen etc are English despite the sources saying otherwise? DanielTokenhouse (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I found your one new source wholly lacking. Best to discuss at those respective Talk pages, I'd suggest. But I think the onus is on you to provide actual WP:RS sources that they are "Irish". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"Pardon me, buddy..."

An aphorism tailor-made for Wikipedia editors? With or without the wiki quotation marks, one of his best, maybe even the best? Made No 6 on the US RnB chart and was only beaten, by "A Real Mother for Ya", some 15 years later, even without a solo. Just supremely wonderful. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

And he was still playing it in his set, 15 years later, at Onkel Pö´s Carnegie Hall Hamburg, (with some very tasty brass)... but still with no solo! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

Hi Martin, you've been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Use of user talk page while blocked, doesn't look like you were pinged. That is a spinoff from a now-closed discussion at WP:AARV here, don't know if you were aware of that one either. Thanks for the ping about Harry Dunn, but I have no memory of that discussion so don't think I'll be much help. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you P-K3 for that kind courtesy. If User:XMcan wishes to me respond, I can do. I'm quite happy to elucidate on the circumstances of my own Talk page at that time. Including the wholly mistaken notion that I was requesting proxy edits from other editors. But the most relevant commenters would probably be the blocking admins. However, I really don't think any comments from me would help matters very much over there. It seems to have been quite a huge amount of fuss over a 24 block. I would have to agree, though, that practice on TPA varies greatly from case to case. Regarding the Harry Dunn page, yes it was a single comment over four years ago! I only pinged you as DeFacto was suggesting I might be vote-stacking. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129 similarly. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Martin; I can't remember the precise discussion now, but rest assured I was not advocating against what you were doing/or advocating for stronger measures (I believe TPA is pulled far too frequently, personally, whether it means to or not generally leaving the impression that access is pulled because an admin just can't be arsed to deal with it. Which is, I think, a) very poor and b) very common.

To clarify, my use of you as an example was purely incidental to the main thrust of my argument: that Thryduulf was completely wrong and, more to the point, already knew it. Sorry for the confusion. (Actually a better example might have been Gerda and that Francis fella, come to think of it.) Cheers! ——Serial Number 54129 14:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

just curious if I should know what this is about, SN? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Serial. Thanks so much for the rapid reply and explanation. No worries. If you remember, in my own case, I had no argument with the original block, and tried to make that clear from the start. But then I had to appeal against, what I saw as, a "drive-by" admin revocation of my TPA, which occurred (as far as I was aware) without any discussion at all with the original blocking Admin. If my appeal email to that new Admin had not been published, then I think it's 99% certain I would not be here now. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen it, I think the misimpression at the block policy talk page has been cleared up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I had not seen that. I'm very grateful to those editors, including yourself, who have explained what happened. Many, if not most, of my posts, were replies to other editors asking for information or making helpful suggestions. As I said at the time, not being able to edit any other page than one's Talk page, is extremely stressful. Maybe it's purposely designed to be so. But it might be an idea, in some cases, if Admins could allow access to perhaps one or two nominated articles and/or article talk pages, in addition, to allow a blocked editor to demonstrate that they have understood the block and collaborate with other editors. But of course this might be beyond the technical capabilities of the project and/or might require too much Admin time to organise. Who am I to offer advice to anyone. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)