User talk:Martinevans123/Archive 3

Notable OCDers

I've added a topic #25 to the OCD talk page- thought you might want to weigh in. OckRaz (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Hello Martinevans123. Thank you for your note and your understanding. I first came upon this distinction a year or so ago while reading Hellen Mirren's autobiography where she refers to herself as an actor throughout. After reading wikipedia's page for actor where, in my opinion (oops POV I know :-)), the info is pretty well sourced regarding the move towards using the term actor I started changing it as I come on it in articles. I don't know that I feel strong enough to involve a bot though (but thanks for the suggestion - I will keep it in mind for the future). I hope that you enjoy Ms Wanamaker's performances. The earliest thing that I can remember seeing her in is Paradise Postponed and I have been happy to see her ever since. I wish I lived in England where I could have seen her on stage. Thanks again for your message and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:MarjoryRazorblade.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:MarjoryRazorblade.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your remarks at BJBot's Talkpage, and just wanted to let you know that there are two different files for Marjory Razorblade's album cover. The one that's being used in Kevin Coyne and Marjory Razorblade is File:Kevin Coyne - Marjory Razorblade.jpg, while the one you uploaded is the same image, but with a different name (File:MarjoryRazorblade.jpg). This image is indeed orpahned. Just thought you should know. User:Brynnar/sig 10:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. That explains my (self-induced) confusion. Not sure why I ever uploaded that other version. Maybe it's wise if I now just delete it myself. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mike Westbrook

Hi

Good to see someone adding a discography to the page about Mike Westbrook. However some of the dates refer to the reissues on CD rather than their original issue dates... and there are a few albums missing.. but good to see it started on. Do you have the correct information or should I change it when I next get the chance?

Regards Chris53 (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories

Hi, Martin. You kindly re-reverted my recent edit to the Pan Am Flight 103 article. Grateful if you would take a look here and do the same to the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article. Many thanks.---PJHaseldine (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for re-reverting my self-revert.

Socrates2008 subsequently edited out what he calls original research on the basis that "the supplied citation mentions nothing about alternate theories being considered or reopening the case".In fact, that citation quotes Sir Richard Dalton as follows: "A decision by the Scottish authorities to keep Megrahi would not seriously derail Britain’s relations with Libya, but there would be consequences. Among them is the possibility that a successful appeal by Megrahi would plunge Britain, the US and Libya once again into the fraught environment of an international investigation to find new Lockerbie suspects."

I dispute that my formulation: "If the appeal court were to overturn Megrahi's conviction when it reconvenes in July 2009, the prospect of a new investigation would open up and alternative theories of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing could be examined", goes beyond the citation or amounts to OR. If you agree, you may wish to undo Socrates2008's edit.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, PJHaseldine. Well it doesn't look like OR from what you have put above. You seem to have become the pariah of the PanAm 103 articles, although I am unfamilar with the exact reasoning behind your edit ban. I will see what I can do, although I am very keen to steer clear of becoming involved in any dispute, especially when my knowledge of PanAm 103 is only marginal. I hope that you may have other editors who can also support you in your fair and reasonable edits. Regards, Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit in question cannot now be undone. However, the following is my 'improved version' of Socrates2008's latest edit rewriting the introduction:

"Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories suggest a number of alternative explanations for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on 21 December 1988. Some of the theories preceded the official investigation by Scottish police and the FBI; others arose through a different interpretation of evidence presented at Libyan agent Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's 2000/2001 trial; yet others have been developed independently by individuals and organisations outside the official investigation.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC) was the first suspect, in light of a threat it issued against U.S. and Israeli interests before the bombing. The state of Iran was also in the frame very early, with its motive thought to be revenge for the July 1988 shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 by USS Vincennes. In his 1994 film The Maltese Double Cross, Allan Francovich suggested that rogue CIA agents were implicated in a plot that involved them turning a blind eye to a drug running operation in return for intelligence. Evidence presented at Megrahi's trial, together with concerns about the reliability of his conviction, spawned a theory that Libya was framed. Abu Nidal allegedly confessed to the bombing before his death, thereby triggering another theory, while Joe Vialls put forward his own explanation that relied on the bomb being detonated remotely. Finally, in December 1989, Patrick Haseldine suggested that the bombing was an assassination by South Africa's apartheid government of United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson."

If you were so inclined, you could simply cut this 'improved version' and paste it to the WP:LEAD of Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories.---PJHaseldine (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I'm inclined not to get involved. I would not want to be accused of being someone's tame third-party sockpuppet. My wiki-induced paranoia already shows me the invisible tracks of Socrates and friends all over this chat page. But you never know. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 14:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Curious

Martin... originally you fell on the side of image display, now the pendulum has swung to the complete opposite end. I'm just curious, do you remember what it was that made you change your mind? –xeno^talk 22:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Xeno"... thanks for the note. No, not really, apart from the eloquent and completely sound arguments of Ward and Faustian. And I'm not sure that the pendulum has swung completely - the time of debate over that one single inkblot now seems like Halcyon Days indeed. I would probably have accepted the 'scarifice' of the much over-exposed Plate I to satisfy the needs of the wikipedia article, until I realised that it truely was not mine to sacrifice. I am just sad now that Ward seems to have been driven away and that Faustian probably feels close to the same. I have recently been enraged, of course, by the succession of ridiculous arguments such as the doubtful ethics of APA and the idea that the test was never "properly" copyrighted. Your continued civility and patience, however, continues to both astound and inspire me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit this (the Rorschach issue) is something I am (personally) of two minds on. Thank you for comments. –xeno^talk 22:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Chatsworth signals

If the yellow Advance warning signal is in the wrong position, then you could have two warning signals.

• a Reduce to Medium Speed (Yellow over Green) at braking distance for freight trains.
• the platform in between
• a Medium Speed Warning (Red over Yellow) at braking distance for passenger trains.
• the Stop Signal at the points (Two Reds or perhaps Three Reds).

The exact signal aspects depend on the railroad.

See Talk:2008 Chatsworth train collision

Tabletop (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tramp

The nonsense to which I was referring in my edit was the listing of Ian Anderson in the see also section. That, clearly, is nonsense. I only trimmed down the information about the "Supertramp," as it were. Sorry for the lack of clarity. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Methinks such an article would be very quickly sent to AfD and meet an unkind fate. Alas! It would be fun while it lasted, though. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding inkblots in other articles

While I do think that the inkblot is a better image in Projective test than no image at all, I have no objection to it being replaced with something of equal or greater informative value. I also find the inkblot to not be relevant to the article Crazy (Gnarls Barkley song) which says they only use Rorschach style inkblots in the video and not the actual one. As such I have replaced it with a Rorschach style inkblot not part of the actual test. I don't think our goals are mutually exclusive and I think that there are plenty of alternative images for Projective test, the question is do any of them enjoy an open copyright or public domain status? Chillum 16:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question, Chillum. It seems unfortunate that the Rorschach is left naked in the copyright field. But you know my views on the display of test materals per se in Wikipedia. That concern might very well extend to the display of inkbots in Gnarls Barkley videos, but then I don't contribute to those! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Note

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Rorschach test has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rorschach test and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, –xeno^talk

Apologies, just too busy in "real life" at the moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach RfC

I see you have commented on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rorschach test‎, which has however already been declined; I think you may be interested, instead, in having a look at the current Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images‎. --LjL (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your continuing request for 'clarification'

In the interest of providing the requested 'clarification', your thinly veiled personal attack was in this edit where you cast aspersions on my motivations. Since my very next comment was a request to refrain from such, there can be no confusion as to what I am referring. Which means your continued requests for 'clarification', [1], [2], [3] could be considered a form of harassment. Please refrain from such actions in the future. Dlabtot (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In this edit I was not casting any aspersions on your motivation, which was already perfectly clear. Your motivation was to hope that: "... further policing of a consensus on the talk pages .... will lead to yet more editors leaving Wikipedia altogether ..." You said "Let's hope so".

I was trying to point out to you that if "administative tools" are used only by those who agree with the consensus, that suggested that only those who agree with the consensus were trying to produce a "better encyclopeadia". Which seemed unfair.

My continued requests for 'clarification', [4], [5], [6] were, in fact, requests for clarification of your statements, not any form of harassment of you, except as you construed it to be.

In one of your edits you said that I had been repeatedly been directed to the Refusal to 'get the point' section of our behavioral guideline against disruptive editing. Could you please provide one single example of where I have previously been directed to WP:IDHT? Many thanks.

Gee. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Samlesbury

Hi there, I see you're doing some good work on Samlesbury. The Southworth family is probably important enough to warrant a section, what do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Monmouth and The Chartists

I wonder do you have any more details of the Harrison reference you have left in those Further Reading sections? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be self-published as I could not find a publisher through online searches. You can purchase the booklet from the author who lives at 11 Monkswell Road, Monmouth, NP25 3PF. £3 + 50p P&P. It might also be available in the local shops, but I couldn't say for sure. He's doing a series lectures on the topic Monmouth and The Chartists and I think there's one in November. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the info. I am still trying to ascertain details of Frost's marital history - see Talk:John Frost (Chartist). Any information or ideas much appreciated. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I now have the booklet, and have replied re Frost on that article's talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for adding that, how intriguing. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Provoking

Assumptions of good faith would lead me to belive you just like being facetious, rather than provoking me (and/or others) for the sake of eliciting an emotional reaction; however, what comes across, to me, in things like this doesn't particularly make me laugh, while ignoring or not acnowledging reality like here and other places cannot but be taken as a waste of talk page space, as well as another way to provoke reactions by denying that discussions that took place took place.

If these are psychological tricks you're using (at least it would be... on topic), then please stop. If they are not intended as such, please consider the possibility that they may have that effect even if unwillingly. Thank you.

--LjL (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with "acknowledging reality" thanks, I have never denied that any "discussions took place" and I have never deliberately sought to provoke you, or any others, "for the sake of eliciting an emotional reaction" (or for any other sake, for that matter). I do not use "psychological tricks" (which in this case would be very off-topic, in my view). I don't accuse others with whom I might disagree of "wasting Talk page space" and I do not make false accusations as you did about me here [7] (and for which I have still received no apology). And no, I cannot imagine that you ever laugh. But your emotional response is, of course, none of my business (although even Chillum tries to have a sense of humour occasionally). Thank you.

As I've said countless times, I won't apologize for pasting the wrong link instead of the one I intended. But you've repeatedly shown you choose to ignore what doesn't suit your purposes. --LjL (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your accusation had nothing to do with pasting a wrong link. And the times are easily countable. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no accusation in the first place from my part; I was simply pointing to things that had been said and which you seemed to deny having been said; I took no moral judgment about that; I simply provided diff links (some of them being the wrong ones, admittedly). I won't apologize for something I haven't done and you're making up.

That is actually another instance where I have a lot of trouble assuming good faith and not believing instead that you were trying to provoke me all along.

If on the other hand you're just very sarcastic and you think that makes you very funny, think again. --LjL (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is one of your "pointing to things that had been said" which, apparently, was not a wrong one, and which I'm not making up:[8] Please explain why you were so ready to support Dlabtot's accusation of "IDHT" - of which you now continue to accuse me. And what evidence was there of "veiled personal attacks" apart from your's and Dlabtot's personal opinions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not support them. You had claimed you HADN'T BEEN ACCUSED of "IDHT", and I showed you (modulo wrong link) that you had. That hardly amounts to SHARING or ENDORSING those accusations, but it seems that such details are entirely irrelevant to you. I am indeed accusing you of IDHT now, but for entirely unrelated reasons. --LjL (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I suggested that I hadn't PREVIOUSLY been accused of IDHT". Art LaPella had criticised Roux, not me, for IDHT, as he later clarified. And why does asking for clarification about somene's statement amount to "veiled personal attacks"? And what are the reasons that you now accuse me of IDHT? And exactly what is the nature of your "further complaints to more appropriate venues". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)