User talk:Martinevans123/Archive 2

Weeton

All the text you added was cut and pasted from the website you linked. I have though expanded it out further now. Have fun.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, just it is best to amend the wording. Good image by the way, and I hadn't even realised the geograph site existed and I've have been keying in Fylde placenames searching for images.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yes I added it in the wrong section and have moved it now. The link was a typo which I've now fixed and it is from a verifiable source just I forgot to amend the template title. As you will see now I've corrected it, the source merely states Preese Hall so that was all I could enter.\With regard to it being notable, yes it is a declared new development in the village. Damn mistakes! By the way if you know the correct co-ordinates for the village perhaps you could amend that too as I doubt the co-ordinates I have entered are correct? Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought about it, you are of course quite right about the notability of the planning application. When I added it I was searching through the Blackpool Gazette online stories for Weeton and came across it. With the sale of the cattle at Preese Hall farm I found some basic articles on google. Perhaps you could add something about that if you don't mind? Your image of the church would also be a good addition to the article as User:Dr Greg mentioned. Thanks. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rorschach page

The case for not showing the original inkblots needs your feedback. You could maybe add some references.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asparagus

Thanks for the note and the spirited language. Hey, I didnt kill off the Proust bit - I move that bit to the end of the article (condemning him to trivia, which he might have enjoyed anyway). But maybe I should go back and re-revise per your advice. I left the extensive bit about urine and various research into the odor (which I agree a record of some obsessive research and possibly not meriting inclusion in WE) for fear of being tarred as a vandal. Gratefully,--Smokefoot (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilcrick

I noticed you've added a reference to "much higher water levels" in Roman times. The alternative - or contributory factor - is that there has been massive silting up, in which a contributory factor may have been reclamation of the levels by sea walls etc. The same processes would have applied on the Troggy/Nedern at Caerwent, Caldicot, and Portskewett, and at Mathern and St. Pierre. Do you have any info on this or on sea levels per se ? - I haven't been able to find anything yet although I know some academic work has been done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a quick google on <"sea level" severn sediments>, and there is obviously a mass of academic research on past changes which I can't access directly. There is a useful overview here. I may make a few more edits when I've assimilated it all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TMS Page

As you must know, a great deal of the text in your section on 'attentional control' is reproduced verbatim from the article by Chambers. Other parts are subtly changed, with one or two words altered but the sentence/paragraph nevertheless copied.

As a case in point, your opening section is taken EXACTLY from the article:

"1. There are at least two critical periods underlying attentional control in the parietal cortex. 2. Mutual inhibition between the hemispheres is important for maintaining an even distribution of attention across space. 3. While the psychological concept of attention may appear singular, it nevertheless arises from a series of distinct neural processes."

If you wish to post a summary of the article, please do the publishers and author the courtesy of addressing all such examples of direct (or indirect) reproduction and summarise the article in your own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedustbuster (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have removed the section again. Since User:Thedustbuster as someone seemingly involved with the original paper has claimed a copyvio, the burden of proof should lie on the contributor, not otherwise. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Gunnar for your rapid mediation. Apologies for a lazy edit that has now been construed as a deliberate act of harm. I notice that anonymous new user Thedustbuster, whom I assume is the publisher, suddenly becomes plural on your talk page. This can't have escaped you, being a laywer. I may attempt a much briefer and less interesting edit when I can, seemingly.

Apologies for a lazy edit, Mr Hoover. I suppose one's "own words" are those never yet used (or printed) by anyone else - not too many of those left? The power of the press indeed. But as we all know, ideas are only free if you can't express them properly. I certainly didn't want to save anyone from rushing out to buy their own copy of The Psychologist or from reading one of Chambers' original papers. But it seems my free publicity is the sort of courtesy you can well do without, at least in this domain. Unless your annonymity implies that you just want Chambers' work to end up in The Dustybin? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mungo Jerry

Regarding your recent goodwill edit. I think you may have misread the newspaper article which, having read it twice myself, is not exactly clear. Having done some research, the banned song "Plastic Jesus" was actually the debut single issue for The King Earl Boogie Band, not Mungo Jerry. The Allmusic discography article here [1] is my reference. I realise you were simply misled, but you may care to reconsider your edit to the Mungo Jerry article. With my kindest intentions and regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Derek. Now reverted. I trust the addition of Paul King can remain, but not sure when he was replaced? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dean and I nominated for deletion

AfD nomination of The Dean and I

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Dean and I, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dean and I. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Grimhim (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graddison

Hi, I think John de Graddison (of the Ottery clock) is our John Grandisson - the dates match. DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Have corrected and linked. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nash, Newport

I think you answered your own query fantastically. There was no information in the text regarding the development. Stating that the town council is opposed to something could be a hundred and one things, but if there is a section, maybe under Present day Nash, which states, as you wrote in your post to me:

...the proposed development of... which is believed would have a detrimental effect on local... because.... This is opposed by locals and as such the local community council opposes the development through...

May be far more valid, people shouldn't need to link to external sites to discover information, the full picture should be in the article. You seem to have a good knowledge on the issue, please add it, I have no objection apart from the vagueness of the original statement as it appeared to be a viewpoint rather then something that would massively effect the village. It should be in a different area and not tagged onto the bottom of amenities though. FruitMonkey (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have now changed. Many thanks for the advice. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Wroth

Great article! Hope you don't mind, but I've added some additional text and references. I'd be happy to nominate the article for "Did You Know" on the main page, if you're interested. One minor point - most texts I've seen refer to Craddock as Cradock, with one "d", but obviously spellings in those days were variable anyway, so I haven't changed it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks, truely. Thank you also for any additions. Yes, I wasn't sure about Craddock -have also seen it both ways. Nominate away! And thanks so much for routinely checking my terrible spelling! Kindest regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts - your wonderful additions have transformed a rather humdrum article into a really good and lively one. Thank you ever so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've nominated the article here, but of course there's no reason not to continue to try and improve it in the meantime. The nomination should take a week or so to work through the system. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preston

A picture of Tulketh Mill would certainly be a worthwhile picture, however, I'm not sure of the practicalities of adding it to the Preston article in terms of layout. Landmarks is only a comparatively short section and we already have a fairly tall image of St Walburges there. There isn't really space left and adding another image may disrupt the text flow. I believe St Walburges is the quintessential Preston landmark so we shouldn't drop that in favour of the mill.

Tulketh Mill is a listed building and fulfills the notability requirements for an article in its own right. However, I myself lack the background knowledge to base such an article on. If the same goes for you I don't see why we can't simply link to an uploaded image in the text - it doesn't need to be inlined. Alternatively, a little Googling brought up http://ashtononribble.com/?cat=7 we could easily add a reference to that - plenty of pictures on that page. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with your logic and I certainly wouldn't want to loose the St.Walburges image. Good idea about an embedded link. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk)

Nailsworth Brewery

Hi Martin, I'm glad that you appear to agree with me that Nailsworth Computers shouldn't be allowed to advertise on the Nailsworth page, but I note that you added a link to the Nailsworth Brewery site, which is a straight advertisement. Not very consistent is it? (Not bad beer though!) On another topic - you don't seem to be listed on the Welsh Wikipedians Noticeboard. Iechyd dda, ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 23:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well spotted on both accounts. I must admit not to have scrutinised the brewery link very thoroughly. But it's hard to see how to link the brewery otherwise. Any ideas? And sorry, am not much of a one for wiki clubs, even Welsh ones. Dioch yn fawr. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose you could just about justify the one in the body of the text as there's a reference to the brewery there, but I think the external one at the bottom should go. Will you do it or shall I? ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 23:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. "C'mon, now. Let's be 'aving you, you wikipedians, now. If you please. 'Aven't you got any edit's to go to?" Martinevans123 (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. He's still at it, but hopefully for the last time. "When the skies are a bright canary yellow......." ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 07:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I joined the club. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William Wroth

On 19 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Wroth, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royal broil 04:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many thanks, Royal. Wow, 25,000 - that's a lot of edits. Glad to see you're involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music - as you can see, I'm a big fan of Bryn Haworth.

Martyr

Hi Martin,

Thanks for your comments about the Martyr. I must admit that I am bemused by the Walker Gallery's website. It was known for many years before the x-rays were made that Millais cut this figure from The Knight Errant, which explains why it was originally nude. The original painting in the Tate bears the marks of the new canvas addition, as does the Walker painting in the jagged shapes visible at the bottom of the x-ray. Millais got the the idea of changing the subject of his cut-out image to depict Margaret Wilson because he had already made an illustration depicting her for the magazine Once a Week back in 1862. I'm not sure if I can get hold of an image of that illustration. It may be reproduced in Goldman's book on Millais' graphic work. I'll check when I get home. Paul B (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Goldman catalogues the picture, but does not reproduce it. It was engraved in Once a Week on 19 July, 1862, p.42. I'm not sure that the Knight is part of an "early Victorian revival". It's a bit like the work of Etty I guess, but I see it as an anti-Classicist response to the revival of the nude by Leighton and others. I created a digital reconstruction of the original Knight some years ago, and the head of the Martyr does fit fairly well with the extant image. Paul B (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Etty was the nearest that Britain got to Titian, but there was a time when Millais himself was given that accolade. Ruskin wrote "Titian alone can head him now" in 1856, and there's a building in Manchester - the Midland hotel - which has a ceramic on the exterior comparing the two arists [2]. I'm not a big fan of Etty. Seeing too many of his nudes makes me feel slightly overfed with flesh! I've located the Millais illustration. I scanned it and uploaded it as image:Millaiswilson.jpg. Paul B (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruskin certainly didn't like visible flesh - in art any more than in life. He gets quite upset when describes Titian's nudes. Millais, though, was quite keen on it. I find his later work to be very...physical, but it's true that he very rarely paints nudes. Anyway, I've added the illustration and expanded the discussion of Millais to include it. Feel free to add more. Paul B (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwent, Caerwent, and Winchester

Hi! Just saw your comment on Owain's page. I wrote that bit of the article - are you looking for references? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Avoiding the EBK site, which we don't trust, there is this and this, to give two examples - actually if you google "Caerwent Winchester" you will get lots of references, some more reliable than others, but basically suggesting that Malory (and others) misinterpreted references to Caerwent as being to Winchester. The theory has been developed and expanded by Barber and Pykitt, but predates them if you're not convinced of their reliability. The links between Venta and Gwent, and Gwent and Caerwent, are surely not questioned, are they? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the "coincidence" - yes it is a coincidence, although at some point people would have forgotten the name origins and thought the two came from the same source, as often happened. So, they would have thought, not surprisingly, that the "went" in Wentwood/Caerwent and the one in Wentloog had the same origins, and developed theories (such as the one you mentioned) that linked them together. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I would imagine that such coincidences may be quite common in etymology. As long as we provide the appropriate references for each, I guess that's fine. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]