User talk:Martinevans123/Archive 5

you wrongfully reverted my post (im new here)

sorry im new, i dont know how im supposed to approach this issue. i just edited "One pound (British coin)" and you reverted my edit, but i believe it was correct. I corrected an error that i found when comparing the wiki page to the source. So what should i do? i dont want my correct edits reverted...

Kavonjoon (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, Ref 1 does indeed list 1983, 1993, 1998 and 2003. Although it only gives the edge inscription for the 2008 coin.

Tom Jones

Thanks for simplifying Tom_Jones_(singer)#Television_and_lawsuits - I merely tweaked the original because Pop Go The Sixties was from same stable as TOTP !

Have tweaked again and now notice that the show aired 31 Dec 69, not 1 Jan 70 according to its entry. Which is best? Fight! HNY....Zir (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Brands

Hi,

Actually, I am basing it on the outline of the British Brands category and the Scottish Brands category. An English brand is a brand created in England, a Scottish brand is a brand created in Scotland and so force. If it was just about market we would have only limited categories, as most UK brands are marketed in the US and other countries. Scottish brands are not only in Scotland, as most of them can be found in England (especially the north). A brand is a specifically patented group of products I believe.

Thank you for you message! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Mummy (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind keeping this conversation in one place please? I suggest at The Mummy's talk page. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is with me, so it's fine here! But I'll certainly join your conversation on that page, if I need to! Thanks.

List of Welsh people

Hi Martin, good to see your contributions at the list. Things can get a bit lonely out there sometimes ;) Daicaregos (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Very welcome. Now where's that passport?! Martinevans123 (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, stick together guys. Bit expensive those welsh passports.Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

My passport says 'European Union'. I'm happy enough with that. Daicaregos (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Rag bag

Interesting that you considered us a "Rag bag" & on another page Rag, Tag and Bobtail is discussed - is there a message there?— Rod ^talk 08:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not me, haha! Apparently some "Louise Ridley" of sciencefocus.com? As for suggesting they are "Welsh Wikipedians", whatever next! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For -sen and -son and the effort you put in to right a wrong! Chaosdruid (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Stroke survivor W.S.

Hey Martin. I have no intention of warring with you, but I do intend to go remove the stroke survivor category on Winston. Strokes have a cumulative effect, and since the cause of death was stroke, it's not reasonable to call him a stroke survivor. He's a stroke victim - it just took a long time. In the name of not warring, if you revert me again, I will abandon this effort. -- Y not? 16:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. No problem. That's a very fair point. Maybe that's true for many illnesses/ conditions? "Revert you again"?, um I only changed it once? Maybe you could add a note on the Talk page to prevent anyone else reverting you? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Rufford Old Hall

I thought you'd finished. I can't resist trimming/pruning trivia, hope you didn't mind. :-) --J3Mrs (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha. so did I. Is one ever finished on here?! Do carry on! Thanks.

1955 Le Mans disaster

I don't think it's appropriate to speculate on why the footage of the crash was flipped in that one newsreel. My own inclination is to say they messed up. You can tell it's flipped because all the lettering is backwards. The photos from Life magazine, presumably taken from the film at the time, are oriented correctly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yes, it's easy to see because of the lettering. I really don't see how they would "mess up" in this way. I'm sure I have seen other examples in newsreel footage of the 1940s and 1950s, particularly of soldiers marching (in front of Adolf Hltler, I think) but I can't provide any links to examples I'm afraid. I think it was a common newsreel editing trick in the age of real film. And I certainly can't offer any source to support my claim of continuity in tis case. But I think it would have looked very odd if that short crash section, filmed from the other side if the track had been put in with direction of travel suddenly reversed. I have no problem, however, if you wish to make that note simpler by removing my guess. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That the crash section was filmed from the other side of the track, however, is a fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

For sure. Curiously, this youtube item[1] looks to be the same newsreel, but it has the orientation of the crash shown correctly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've modified the wording further to include the point you made. It's getting a bit wordy, but it seems necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, how curious. The clip version on YT looks better - without that annoying advert at the start and the irritating over-printed copyright statement. It's been there for over four years, so it's looks quite stable. Could it be linked to instead? Wonderful period unbiased commentary: "13 of the finishers are Bristish cars! A fine achievement, overshadowed by an appalling tragedy" - almost as if the achievement hae been rather spoiled by the crash! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I will do that. And, yes, kind of like the old joke, "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your question, in theory any external link is disallowed if it links to copyrighted material. I think the previous link was a Pathe site, so theoretically it's their own copyright. My usual inclination is to consider the age of the clip. I'm fairly certainly that's not within policy, but I would rather see the correct footage there if possible. I suppose the right thing to do would be to contact whoever owns the Pathe site and ask, "Why is the footage flipped?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Also note that I removed the Hawthorn link, as it appears to be primarily a spam site. Maybe it wasn't that way when the link was added almost 4 1/2 years ago,[2] but its primary purpose appears to be to sell books and build a registration list. Jagfan50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) entered that item in a few places and then disappeared, which is rather telling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are quite right. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the user's spam entries had been removed over time, but they missed a couple. The one still remaining is in the Hawthorn article. Do you think it should stay or go? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not in my watchlist, so no strong opinion. I'd be tempted to leave it, as at least it's kind of "article-favoured spam", not that Mike himself will ever see the benefit. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was thinking also. So I'll leave it be. Thank you for your help in this discussion. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the scariest part of that film is how exposed everyone was - drivers and spectators both. It's like the guys were driving go-karts at 150 mph. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, how true. Although I found it quite scary that the dead and dying were tended by ".. doctors, priests and uninjured spectators". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those ininjured spectators would certainly be well-versed in first aid, and wouldn't have been at all traumatized by what they had just witnessed. On the plus side, they didn't need to do anything with the 80-some that had been decapitated or roasted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Air France Flight 447

Hello! I'm not sure I'm getting the sentence "The task will also involve a US Remora 6000 remotely operated vehicle and operations crew experienced in the recovery of aircraft for the US NAVY.". Is the whole "US Remora 6000 remotely operated vehicle and operations crew " part a susbstantive? Or is "operations crew" a separate substantive? Please clarify. Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 15:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Alas I can clarify only my understanding of the sentence as it was added. The source is pay-for-view, so I have in fact now deleted it and tagged as cite needed. Even if it was fully available, I'd probably be relying on Google translation of the original French. But my understanding was this: there were two things involved in the rescue - one is the ROV and the other is "a crew experienced in ROV operations". They are both substantive noun-phrases as far as I can see, but can also be used together as a complex noun-phrase. If we can't fine a beter source, however, I guess we should delete the sentence altogther. Else, even with a source, if the "operations crew" is a problem, suggest we leave it out. Tnanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Crwth

I probably didn't phrase what I was trying to say just right. In fact, I'm sure I didn't. The sentence, "Since it derives from Welsh...", seems to imply that English words that derive from Welsh do not include the standard English vowels. Is there perhaps a way to make that statement more concise? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, I know what you mean. But I am more tempted to take it out altogether, because it's missing the point. The statement was originally wrong, so I tired to correct it, but this watered-down version isn't really very punchy, is it. It's a Welsh word being used in English. That's about it! Like cwm, or even (where I come from) twp and cwtch. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could say something akin to that. "Crwth is one of several English words derived from Welsh that do not use any of the 5 traditional English vowels." Joefromrandb (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps, "Crwth" is an English loanword, borrowed from Cymraeg, that does not use any of the 5 traditional English vowels. Other examples include "cwm", "twp" and "cwtch". Joefromrandb (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Your latest edit is fine by me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad we could work it out amicably. BTW, I'm familiar with cwm. Could you tell me what "twp" and "cwtch" are? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no problem. Twp means stupid and cwtch means cuddle [3]. Cheers, or should I say iechyd da. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

References

The information you just added to Exmouth regarding churches was unsourced. You clearly got those facts and figures from somewhere so it would be very helpful if you quoted your sources. Also, please don't use external links in the way that you did for the other churches. There is no reason to have an external link to any church within the body of an article unless it forms part of a reference - and a simple link to the church' website wouldn't necessarily be a good reference. Ask if you need help. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you're quite right. But yes, help might be nice, instead of just being told one is wrong. My word, the genuki info was there unreferenced for all of three whole minutes. That's almost long enough to get a cup of coffee, or maybe not. Maybe it's time to take Exmouth off my watch list. And throw away any images of historic churches that would add so little to this article.

Let Them Talk

If you want to be a stickler to UK English... fine. I am not even mentioning the fact that despite being a UK artist, Laurie is currently the highest paid actor on US television. However, as this is an encyclopaedia, we cannot present an album (in the lead section, no less) that has not yet come out without indicating the word "upcoming" or "forthcoming", even if it is for several hours. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A lifetime of listening to Dr. John does not go unpunished, I should know, haha (and he da man!!). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Roger Hodgson

Thank you for letting me know. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

William Stadden

With a little bit of work, I think this may be a GA article. Do you think we should push it forward? FruitMonkey (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not. The Western Mail article I have used has quite a bit more useful material. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Martinevans123. You have new messages at ScottSteiner's talk page.
Message added 09:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Netley Abbey and misericords

Hi! I saw your note on the Netley Abbey article regarding the misericord and I can see why you queried it. It's not a mistake, as well as the more well-known choir seat, misericord was also the term used in the later middle ages for the room where monks could dine on meat dishes not allowed in the main refectory under the usual interpretations of monastic rules. While meat dishes had always been allowed to the elderly, children, guests and the sick, the monks' communal meals were supposed to be sparse and mostly vegetarian, but from the 14th century, the privelege of eating meat dishes was gradually extended until virtually everyone was eating the forbidden food in a room set aside for it, served by a seperate kitchen from the main one (usually connected to the infirmary), thus keeping the letter, but not the spirit of the rules. Use of the word makes sense, both were allievations of the burden of the rules, whether the duty of standing for long hours in a freezing church, or of eating a mostly vegetarian diet.

I used the word in the Netley article because it's used for the room in the discussion of that part of the building in the cited source (the official government publication on the ruins) and there isn't a better modern term. As the specific meaning is explained in the text, I'm going to remove the wikilink to the misericord article until I have time to sit down and edit that article to mention the meat dining room usage.

Best wishes, Soph (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Spooky or what?

I was just watching the end of the bodyshock programme on Sultan Kösen, looked up the article and decided to add a bit about the treatment he received. I got interrupted whilst making the edit and when I came back to it and tried to save it I ran into an edit conflict. When I had a look at the new text I found that you had just added a sentence with almost the same wording as I had just used - wow, that was spooky! :) Richerman (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If only. It's called "wikimindset" and, guess what, there's no effective treatment currently available. Well, not in Turkey or Lancashire anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Combined with watching too much television it's a terrible affliction. Richerman (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha, yes. I certainly found that programme quite compelling. It was refreshing to see more consideration of the psycho-social effects of such a physical condition. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Titanic sources

Hi! As you are actually doing a lot of work on the 'Titanic' article, I wondered if you are interested in additional sources. I've two comprehensive papers as PDF (Unfortunately, only scanned, hence no text search possible) which are (although not fully flawless) highly valuable. If you are interested, just send me an email containing your email address (on my user's page --> Toolbox --> E-mail this user). Regards, --DFoerster (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) Hacket C. and Bedford, J.G. (1996). THE SINKING OF THE S.S. TITANIC – INVESTIGATED BY MODERN TECHNIQUES. The Northern Ireland Branch of the Institute of Marine Engineers and the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 26 March 1996 and the Joint Meeting of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects and the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, 10 December 1996.

(2) W. Garzke et al. [Marine Forensic Panel (SD 7)]: Titanic, The Anatomy of a Disaster. The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1997

Hi DF. That's very kind of you. Yes, I'd love to read them. I'll email you. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Annulments - not divorce

Listen to my logic:

1) They are not a kind of divorce, since divorce implies that a man & a woman were married, and that the marriage has come to an end. Annulment states that the marriage never took place.

2) It is not a step or "half-way" to divorce. If it were, then that would mean divorce would complete or be the final step after anuulment - which is false, since no one who gets an anuulment gets a divorce.

This is not some US or secular anuulment. The article's use of the word "Anuulment" refers to the Catholic anuulment.98.176.4.85 (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasoanable, from a theoretical point of view. And yes, I was using "half way house" figuratively not literally - I'm sure there are better expressions. But you need to ask yourself these questions: why do people in Malta request annulments? and why does the church in Malta give annulments? Surely the reason they are not "secular anuulments" is because of the immense power of the Catholic church in Malta. There is no marriage apart from Catholic marriage.

But I am no expert and I certainly have no strong views. I will not revert you again. I just thought that it was was a fact that was relevant in the debate. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the fact remains, and remains in the article. But perhaps you could clarify - is there also civil annulment in Malta? Presumably, whether or not there is, the church allows those who have their marriages annulled to re-marry ("to marry properly for te flrst time")? But, in the absense of civil annulment (or divorce) this would be unlaweful? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not there is, the existence of it - separate from divorce - shows that it's different. As for the fact that they are introducing annulment, it would argue more strongly in my favor, since it shows that the 2 are different - else they would not seek something so similar. The Church's annulments are, despite the 8% rate, restrictive, more than the divorce, since it's not just enough for the 2 to hate each other, or have a misunderstanding or what not. 98.176.4.85 (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, they are introducing annulment? Is that really what you mean? Can you answer any of my other questions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Preston

Thanks for correcting my typo, I was just about to go back to that but got involved elsewhere checking through some vandalism. I was in a mind to delete BF from the article as I don't really see why waiting for a boat to America makes him sufficiently notable for the article, as he wasn't born there. But creating a new Blue plaque sub section seemed a viable alternative. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I guess if there's a blue plaque, whoever they are deserves to be in, however long thay stayed. But it's never been clear to me what the criteria are for anyone on the "list of people from .." getting to be also in the "Norable people" section in any town or city article. In some articles it seems to be only living people. Maybe it's in the MOS. I must get round to reading that one day! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wovon ...

The late great Gil Scott Heron, eh?

I don't remember what schweigen means.

You might benefit from:

Wikipedia:Babel

cyMae'r defnyddiwr 'ma yn siaradwr brodorol y Gymraeg.

Search user languages

or equivalent on your user page.

I have some kinfolk in Wales.

Varlaam (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Silent. I love your user page, by the way. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig being sublime again? (Like his namesake Lutwidge?)

You like mine? Chaos? Disorder? Randomness? A damaged mind stumbling through the dark, eyeless in Gaza?

Varlaam (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Oracular fruit flies

In response to your comments at Talk:Paul the Octopus#Merging successors: The section of Animal worship#Oracular animals is describing the concept in general, not a complete list of every animal used that way. If those fruit flies are relevant at all, then it is only to the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup. I suggest you take up this discussion on that corresponding talk page. Spacexplosion^[talk] 15:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. And, of course, they can't even be occular yet can they, as the tournament has only just begun? But I think one might expect a few examples in that section which don't necessarily have their own wikipedia article. I must admit, I do see the fruit-flies as a Germanic postscript to Paul, and I think if anywhere that's where they belong. But we'll see, perhaps they'll just fly away. Another question, however - do you really see modern day oracular animals, such as Paul the Octopus, as appropriate examples of "Animal worship"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I did ponder this question. Since Animal worship is somewhat disorganized already, I gave it a little leeway and assumed that what is intended here is to show that the old customs of animal divination have given rise to modern curiosities. Punxsutawney Phil and Paul the Octopus are the only ones I am familiar with out of those listed, and I would say that Phil deserves the mention in the generic context far more than Paul, given that Phil is a long-standing tradition for the town including many more than one animal. Spacexplosion^[talk] 18:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hepworth

I only undid your edit as it said nothing about the gallery, somebody reviewed it. If we knew what it said, that would be another matter.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. But a note to that new editor might have been more productive (and encouraging)?. Thanks.

I'm not sure why you said that, it was your edit I reverted and I told you why. I will reply on your page if I post here, no need to duplicate on mine.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I said it because I was partially reinstating an edit (from an editor has now been blocked indefinitely, although I'm not sure why) that I thought was quite fair, if a bit useless. I know you weren't reverting him. Sorry for assuming that you had followed the history, and could see my perspective. Thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Oliver Sacks

Hi. Thanks for adding more sourced material to the Oliver Sacks article. Just a couple of things I should point out, though:

• We do not use terms like "recent" because it not only is vague and subjective, but dated as well. Please see WP:DATED. Looking over the interview you cited as a source, which is from December 2010, Sacks says he lost that vision a year prior, which is 2009. At best, the notion that 2009 is "recent" is subjective. At worst, I don't think it's recent at all. I changed this to indicate a more specific time frame, as indicated by WP:DATED. (An exception to this would be when directly quoting someone, or using a phrase like "his most recent film...")
• Since it occurred in 2009, it doesn't really have anything to do with his early life or his education. If there isn't a section into which new material fits, create a new one. I created a Personal life section, and put that the passage right before in it. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to explain your actions. I totally agree, of course. After logging off I had thought to create exactly the same new Section, especially since his prosopagnosia seemed to have little to do with his 'early life' or 'education'!. Much better now. I'm sure there is more that could be added to his Personal Life. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Helmsley

The Windy Pits section was was never dumped, just moved to make it more prominent. I think it an interesting part of the article.--Harkey (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Apologies for missing that. But it was only put in this article by default. Do you think it would be better in the Duncombe Park article? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I just googled "Windy Pits" to see if there was enough info online to make a separate article. I'll put it on my never ending todo list!!--Harkey (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I had a quick look, but didn't see very much. But well done. I think the BBC programme mentioned that other skeletons had been found in other caves at Windy Pits. The four in the programme were all at the bottom of Slip Gill. The cave is notable for its strong warm draft at the entrance, apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the "tidy up" of my stuff on Helmsley. I was rushing because lunch was ready. :-) --Harkey (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I think it often works well if one editor does the spade work and others do a tidy-up and linking. :) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Haigh Hall

I really don't know why I edit. It's not even about the hall.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the edit summary? Could you possibly respond to that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is about the hall not the country park, it is occasionally open to the public. I get really fed up with everything on here becoming a trivia magnet, I wouldn't be surprised if next thing was a linked list of non notable bands.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume that you've read my reasons, even though you have chosen not to respond to any of them? No I supppose you wouldn't be surprised would you. But I think that would be totally unreasonable. I can assure you that the only relevance that this property has to the 8,000 young music fans who will attend Haigh Fest today, if this one day festival. If Wigan Council can go to the bother of funding and organising a unique event like this for the young people of Wigan every year it should at least get a mention. As I said, there is no separate article for the Country Park which is where it would really bedlong. So until it does I would argue that it should stay here, even if just as a footnote. And if you know that the house is open to the public I think you should add this, with a source. I must say that your objections here make you sound like you're baing "very stuffy". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I read your reasons and yes, its trivial, it might have a ref (not a citation as the rest of the article does) but that just makes it referenced trivia and where did you move it to- the middle of the article! The hall article needs expanding not the trivia, if it's so important write a country park article instead of trivialising this one. From a "very stuffy--J3Mrs (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

If an article is about a place, and there is a unique and reasonably large annual public event at that place, then I think it's notable. I'll open a topic on the Talk page. (I'm sure a ref could be easiy changed to a citation?) I think it's also notable from another perspective - that the council chooses to spend money on this festival and not on opening the house on a more regular basis. Perhaps the article should at least make clear whether or not the property is in private ownership. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that it's owned and run by the council for profit? And there is nothing left for the public "to view" inside as such. So it's not really "open to the public" as such - making any events in the Park that more notable, I'd suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Llanwrthwl

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Haigh Hall

The DYK project (nominate) 08:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. Maybe you could add more entries to List of country houses in the United Kingdom?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ted Hughes

Thanks for your cleaning up on the Hughes article. Much appreciated. Span (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Plath

After Hughes, comes Plath :o) I notice you added a Youtube link of her gravesite. I understood that most news programmes, such as this one from 1988, are under copyright. Did I miss something. It's a great video. It's always a shock to hear how RP Plath's voice sounds. Span (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe YouTube missed something. Maybe the legal department of that 23-year-old regional tv news progrmme missed something. Although YouTube links are pretty much frowned upon by Wikipedia, I think there's only a problem with actually incorporating copyright text without due acknowledgement. Provided an external link isn't spam, I believe it's usually a case of "reader beware" - what's on the end of the link is not under WP control. Incidentally, I thought that Plath's voice was the most interesting part of that rather amateurish report. (..there's quite a few feminists in Hebbo who'd take issue with your opening line!) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to include the links. WP:YOUTUBE. Seems pretty clear to me. Plath only follows Hughes on your talk page but it seems the two are passing into mythos and their work will be chasing each other in perpetuity, like constellations. A brownie fresh from the oven for you.

Thanks. Yes, that does seem clear, except that YouTube's policy on copyright is also clear, even if their enforcement of that policy seems to change like the wind (or like Warner Brothers legal department decides the wind is currently blowing!). I'll not remove the link for now, but if someone else wants to, oh well. I must say that the current image in the article of Plath's headstone is so blurred, one can't even see the repair properly :(.

Thanks for all your great work on literature articles. Many are a great deal better by your efforts. Span (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, this club is great, isn't it! Mmmmmm, my favouite snack, yummy! Thanks. haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy. I'll send over a rock cake next time. Best wishes. Span (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, as an after thought, I am genuinely thanking you for all your work, and not just on lit articles (I wondered if you might think there was some ironic ingredients in the brownie). I've been meaning to send cake over for a while, Plath and Hughes gave me a nudge. Span (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's very much appreciated. That's the first time I have ever been given a gift of thanks. With only one little barnstar to show in nearly four years, it's very nice for anyone to actually say "thank you". And while I might expect irony in a flapjack, I never would suspect it in a brownie! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Bank Hall

Thank you for the edits to Bank Hall much appreciated, there has been alot of information removed from the article over the last year or so as it has either been classed as "trivial" or no refererence has been found. The edits you have done seem to make sense, it would be great to get the article into a DYK or featured article status which has been a dream of mine for some time now, not that i have had much positive help towards it, most has unfortunately being derogatory resulting in info then removed or split into other sub articles. If you could help get the page up to standard it would be much appresicated. Thanks JMRH6 (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This coould be a great article and I see no reason why it could not get into DYK. You're very welcome to any help I can give. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sorry I didnt see this edit as i wasnt watching your page! just rediscovered you! haha! Thanks for the edits again, I can provide the info and if you want to re word it thats good as I like the way you reword it and dont just delete it like other wikipedia users do in articles. I was thinking of creating a WWII section to the article as it will have a lot of information, just finding it is a nightmare! The military section has been taken off the talk page for some reason. Im guessing its cause there isnt a lot about military in the article at present but that really does need expanding as Bank Hall was such an important building during WWII. Its just a lot of the information was destroyed after the war as it was top secret work that was carried out there according to a late local resident, who i wish i had spoken to personally but he spoke to a guy doing a WWII essay on Bank Hall. I have seen it myself and it is good! maybe i could reference that? for some information that was found? He did actually gave a copy to a friend of mine so I will try get some info from him! JMRH6 (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Hi many thanks for your edits its now reading much better in the Bank Hall article JMRH6 (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. That's much appreciated. But really all I've done is put the odd word in here and there! Martinevans123 (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:J3Mrs

Hi, could you explain this edit? Am I missing something? Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly a sense of humour. I know mine's been slowly dissolved. Thanks.

Let me make something very clear. What you did was completely inappropriate. I don't know what your differences are with J3Mrs, and I don't care either. If you don't like the way J3Mrs goes about writing articles, that's your business and you can discuss it with her. But if you pull another stunt as infantile, petty, and foolish as changing someone else's comments so you are putting words in their mouth I will not hesitate to block you. I shouldn't need to be telling you this and I expect higher standards from someone who's been here since 2007. You are not some wet-behind-the-ears editor who thinks it is appropriate to daub vandalism across Wikipedia, and especially not deliberately change the meaning of what another person has said. Nev1 (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for such gentle, impartial advice. No need to block. Bye.

Don't go!

I don't know what the problem is - but if it's an issue with one of the "charming" people from here, don't worry, we've all been there. The rest of us value your input - so, hope you'll be back soon! Cheers, Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A gentle reminder

Shit happens. We'll live. We value your contribution even if we've been slow to say so. One editor does not speak for all of us. Just so you know. Go gently. Span (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not surprised

Am not surprised that you don't feel welcome any more. It's easy to find lots of sloppy editors on Wikipedia who are very amicable. Unfortunately you seem to have the knack of finding the very professional editors who also happen to be big-headed know-it-alls. It seems there's quite a few to choose from. They all seem to like to keep messy amateur intruders OUT of their favourite articles. As for your facetious Talk Page quip - I think that may have deserved raised eyebrows at most, but not a lecture and the threat of a ban. Maybe someone just wants to collect Admin Brownie Points. And I agree with editor Span - you have made many contributions, even whole articles, without any recognition. So I don't blame you if you feel like you want to throw it all in. Seems a shame. AH. 109.153.194.239 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Friars Club of Beverly Hills?

Thanks fan-club members. I’ll get the butler to send another signed photo. But everything looks lovely and cosy over there in grown-ups corner, doesn’t it; so I don’t think it’s going to be any time soon.

Apparently, such “childish vandals” always return. Hmm, sounds to me like some Woolworths Pearls of Wisdom there. The obvious answer, of course, is Groucho’s: "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER". But am also reminded of this from Marilyn vos Savant “Being defeated is often a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent”

So while I’m away on extended gardening leave, the exam revision question is obviously this one: “wiki editing from an ip address is so much more efficient, since no-one’s ego need ever get in the way – discuss”. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You've made 13000+ edits since 2007 and were unaware that operating multiple accounts was not permitted? TNXMan 18:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. Having never fallen foul of this regulation, I was under the impression that multiple accounts were perfectly acceptable, for example as a means of dividing up subject areas of interest provided that there was no abuse involved, e.g. using multiple accounts to gain false consensus, to make personal attacks on other editors etc etc. Indeed I am aware of a large number of users who use more than one account. They do to seem to have been blocked. Nor do I see that they are abusing their accounts. You will see from my edit history, before 29 July 2011 I had never even be warned of being blocked at any time for any reason. And now I am blocked indefinately. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

But you've overlooked AccountNumber7. It is possible for multiple users to make multiple accounts from a single ip address isn't? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Also is there any regulation that I am not permitted to create a new account for each new day I edit or for each new article to which I choose to contribute? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And I don't believe that I have ever "used multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block." So I think accusations of "sockpuppety" are unfounded. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

For the reviewing admin, this category should help. TNXMan 20:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

But am not sure what reviewing admin have left to do? You have not accused these accounts of being suspected sockpuppets and asked them to explain - you've already decided that they are. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So it's a case of "guilty until proven otherwise"? Not much of discussion there about the efficiency of ip editing? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

These accounts have been confirmed to be yours using the checkuser tool; Tnxman and I are both checkusers and can confirm that these accounts are editing not only from the same IP address, but the same computer, as well as the fact that this has been going on for an extended period of time. I find it extremely difficult to believe that an editor that started in 2007 has never heard of the sockpuppetry policy. I can further think of no reason why anyone would need eight separate accounts to use for editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Hersfold, for your rapid and clear response. I am very aware of sockpuppetry policy and totally respect it. It's good to see that checkuser works. But I don't think having multiple accounts is actual evidence of intentional sock-puppetry. Any overlap in the editing of these accounts has been unintended. You say that "this has been going on for an extended period of time" but that's not strictly true since that last accounts were created only recently, all with rather limited edits, in response to what I felt was a false accusation by one administrator, of "vandalism". If an editor's watchlist get's too big to manage, I guess most editors simply start to disgard articles. I understand that Wikipedia works, in some cases, by means of a shared interpretation of guidelines rather than by enforcement of strict rules. But the end result sometimes appears to be management by means of a set of indiviual administrator's opinions. In this case I think you have been a little too harsh. But thanks for your help. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

An outsider here. Has anyone yet explained how Martinevans123 has abused multiple accounts? Yes, it seems odd to me that he used multiple accounts at all - but I'm not aware that that per se is grounds for a block. The guidance says that "The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust" (my emphasis). Not the use of multiple accounts for non-nefarious purposes. "Editors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus." Again, I've seen no evidence of any behaviour by Martinevans123 or any of the other named accounts to do any of that. On the contrary, in my interactions with Martinevans123 over several years, on non-contentious matters of shared interest, I've never seen any behaviour other than to suggest that he is an exemplary editor here. In this case, he may simply be guilty of naivety - perhaps of not reading WP:SOCK#NOTIFY (which I confess I'd never done before writing this). I think there is a possibility that admins who deal with nefarious sockpuppetry on a daily basis may simply have made a wrong call on this one. I'd urge that the block be reviewed again and withdrawn, with Martinevans123 being given a suitable warning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ghmyrtle. Over 14,000 edits combined, by those accounts. Whether or not all of those accounts were created by me, or all of those edits performed by me, I am still not sure how they can been seen as evidence of sock-puppetry when there is no overlap between the subject matter edited by any of them. Is there one single example in those 14,000 edits where the editor has "used multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block"?

Indefinite blocking of account

Hello Hersfold. As the reviewing administrator you upheld the indefinite block of my account [here] on the basis that I was guilty of sockpuppetry. As I have tried to make clear, although I have operated a number of accounts, and freely admitted to so doing, there has been no intentional overlap in the edits made by these accounts, and so I do not see how sockpuppetry has taken place. The policy, which I have again re-read, does not seem to make it clear that holding multiple accounts is in itself evidence of sockpuppetry, I wonder could you possibly advise on how long I should wait before I could make a fresh appeal to be unblocked? Many thanks.

Well, as the edit notice to this talk page should have told you, evading your block will certainly not help your case. Any further edits or appeals must be made through one of your existing accounts, not from a new one or while logged out. The IP address you posted from above will be blocked shortly. However, in response...

The simple act of maintaining multiple accounts is not against policy. I have quite a lot myself - this account, my "public area" non-admin account, a couple test accounts, my bots, etc. - however these are all legitimate, publicly declared, accounts. The distinction between a legitimate alternate account and a illegitimate sockpuppet is generally twofold: transparency and separation.

Legitimate alternate accounts should be clearly advertized as such, with an obvious link to their owner, unless doing so would defeat the purpose of having the account (for example, an editor that supports gay marriage may wish to have a separate, undisclosed account if their family is largely against it, and the family knows about the editor's main account). Even in the case of a private account, it is strongly recommended that the identity of the account's owner be disclosed to a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee via email to avoid problems should the two somehow be linked.

The inviolate principle of using multiple accounts is that the accounts must remain entirely distinct from one another. For example, a bot account is an account that exists to perform edits of a particular purpose. My alternate account User:Hersfold non-admin is to be used when I am at a public terminal and do not wish to log into my main account for security reasons. Undisclosed accounts should exist almost as though they are a completely separate person with completely distinct interests. In the case I gave in the previous paragraph, the editor's alternate account should focus exclusively on articles relating to homosexuality, and should not interact in any way with the editor's main account. The two should never be seen editing the same page (or even the same general subject area), with the sole exception of major project-space pages such as ANI; in this case, if one account has commented in a discussion, the other account should not get involved at all.

Now, in your particular case, there was no disclosure that you were operating these accounts, neither privately nor publicly. In fact, some of your comments after the block ("It is possible for multiple users to make multiple accounts from a single ip address isn't?") seemed to be a denial that all of these were your accounts. Secondly, there is no apparent need for having all of these accounts, nor is there a clear distinction amongst where they edit. While it does seem, at a glance, the accounts do manage to avoid editing the same pages, they are still focused on the same general subject areas. While I cannot speak to TNXman's exact reasons for the block, had I noticed your accounts on checkuser in passing, I likely would have blocked them as well; if nothing else, an explanation was in order as to why you were using eight accounts to edit. That explanation is still not forthcoming, and your comments and block evasion to not lead me to believe that you fully understand the purpose behind this policy as yet. Until that is demonstrated, your accounts will remain blocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Hersfold, for your very prompt and very detailed reply. For completeness, I have copied my question and your reply above here. I hope this is permitted. Your answer, which you were not obliged to give, is extremely helpful and makes things much clearer to me. I wish the description in the policy was as short and clear as this. I wholeheartedly thank you for it.

I had intended my ip contact with you to be a means of initiating dialogue, not as a means of block evasion. I had thought that those administrators directly involved in a block might be best placed to answer any questions. I cannot add a reply at your Talk page without being logged out, and as that would be apparently a further infringement of policy, I have to reply here. I have no reason to expect that you will be watching this page, of course, and so you may never see it or reply. Oh well.

I have no problem with making transparent, privately or publicly, the links between any of these accounts. Nobody seemed very interested at the time they were created, of course. I am quite happy to "legitimate" any or all of them if required. I am equally happy for as many of them as required to be closed down. You are quite right - I don’t need eight, perhaps two or three at most, to keep subject areas separate for my own convenience. Yes eight accounts may have been a little over-ambitious, although it does make the watch-lists much shorter. You say you have "quite a lot" - I wonder how many ids that?

I also have no problem with separation of subject mater. That’s the sole reason they were created. Your comment that Undisclosed accounts should exist almost as though they are a completely separate person with completely distinct interests suggests that undisclosed accounts are perfectly valid, within certain limits. This was entirely my intention. I’m very sorry if my idea of "separate" and "distinct" differs from yours. This is not really defined anywhere is it? But what has this to do with sock-puppetry? If you find one single example, in those 14,000 edits, that is indicative of any kind of bias or underhanded dealing, please let me know.

You also state that for these accounts there is no clear distinction amongst where they edit. Again I think that might be a rather subjective judgement. But I don’t think it’s a valid comment at all for the two principal accounts, from which the majority of edits were made over a period of several years. It’s easy to check.

There were a number of questions I would also have put to TNXman about his reasons for blocking me in the first place, which I thought was rather hasty. He has asked for no explanations at all. But it seems that this will now not be possible as it would also seen as me using an ip address for purposes of evading the block.

By the way, the comment "It is possible for multiple users to make multiple accounts from a single ip address isn't?" is not a denial. It’s a valid question about the logic used to decide that multiple accounts from the same ip address have been created by the same person, before any explanation has been asked for and before any denials or admissions have been made.

Anyway. Thank you again for your very useful response, although it seems that my asking has rather set back the possibility of any further appeal against the block being successful. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin. I do believe (and believed for a long time, and have said here and elsewhere) that your punishment for what I believe was an innocent mistake was harsh in the circumstances. I think that, should you seek an unblock again, and set out all this information and explanation, together with a recognition by you that you have absolutely no intention of creating any new accounts, there would be no good reason for the block to be continued. So, I hope you'll make another formal request for an unblock through the mechanisms at WP:AAB, and pursue your request. If I can be of any help (as an editor in good standing, I think, 5+ years, 37K+ edits, no blocks), let me know. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Martinevans123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There is a detailed narrative explanation of how this situation came about on my talk page, above. I am quite willing for any or all of these accounts to be closed. The policy has been made very clear to me. I will not be using multiple accounts again unless strictly within policy guidelines. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

This is all looking like a good editor who fell foul of the rules without meaning any harm, so I'm unblocking with the proviso that only this one account is used - use of a second account can be requested and reviewed at a later date, if desired -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. After your explanation, I'm minded to lift your block, but I'd rather not do it unilaterally. So I'm discussing this with the blocking admin to see if there is agreement to give you another chance, and will return here as soon as I can -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As you will be aware, I cannot respond on your Talk page. But thank you - that seems perfectly fair. I have been unable to contact either of the original administrators directly myself. One seems to be away and the other does not seem to have an email link, so non-ip contact by me is impossible. If a decision is made in my favour, I would appreciate any advice on how I can close the unwanted accounts. I would also very much appreciate being able to keep the one intended "undisclosed account" open for edits to do with that particular area of interest, except that now, of course, it has been "fully disclosed". If this is deemed not possible, then so be it. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I meant to give you a link to my discussion with the blocking admin, sorry. It's at User_talk:Tnxman307#User:Martinevans123 - if you have any comments you'd like to make, please post them here and I'll convey them to the discussion. (I can easily sort out closing any excess accounts for you at the appropriate time, so don't worry about that for now). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, That is very helpful of you. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• By way of additional background, technical (checkuser) data suggests that Martinevans has not been using any alternative accounts since he was blocked. Without a specific target, such conclusions are of limited value, but contrarily we do generally assume good faith, especially where the previous socking was not abusive as such. AGK [•] 16:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks AGK. As you say, it's not conclusive, but everything adds up, and coupled with a bit of good faith I think it's adding up to a productive editor who just unfortunately got caught in the web of Wikipedian rules without meaning any harm at all. The blocking admin appears to have been away for little while, so I'm going to go ahead and unblock on the proviso that only this one account is used, at least for now - I'll let the blocking admin know too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ghmyrtle for being so supportive. And thank you Boing! said Zebedee and AGK for such prompt intervention. I wonder could anyone possibly now advise how I now close the old accounts? Should the sock tag be removed from them first? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is really that interested ...

The reactions of the administrators who have blocked my accounts suggest that there is little point in my making another request for an un-block. But I have been persuaded to offer an explanation, to anyone who may be interested, of how this whole rather bizarre situation has arisen. So apologies for the following tedious narrative. I hope it might at least be useful to any casual editors who may have been as naive as I have.

After a considerable amount of time spent editing as an anonymous i.p., I created my original account in Jan 2007 as Martinevans123 (edits = 13,186, deleted = 61; total = 13,247). In December 2007 I was advised to create a new account and use it purely for edits to do with a particular interest of mine, this was AccountNumber2 (edits = 523; deleted = 6; total = 529). I did not realize that I was supposed to make a public declaration of the connection between these two accounts. The new one was intended to operate as “undisclosed account” which apparently is entirely legitimate. So I’m not sure why Martinevans123 is a soickpuppet of AccountNumber2 when the former preceded the later by 11 months. Not that it makes much difference.

This arrangement worked fine for over three years. However, although I was not a very active editor, by the end of 2010, I had accumulated, between these two accounts, watchlists which included literally thousands of pages. And I found it increasingly difficult to keep track of these. Furthermore a combination of cataract in both eyes (now getting worse) and old technology meant that a zoom level of 200% cut my “effective watchlist” to only a very few items at any one time.

So I resolved to split my accounts again, to group my main interests separately - one for music and media, one for aviation and science, one for poetry and literature, one for fine arts, and so on – and each with a manageable size of watchlist. I consulted the wikipedia policy on sockpuppetry and decided (very mistakenly as it turned out) that it had nothing to do with me. I had no intention of overlapping the edits of these accounts.

I had also become aware by this time that it was a standard practice of many established editors, if they wished to make anonymous edits, to simply log out, edit and then log back in again. Not for illicit purposes, but simply to remain anonymous. Wikipedia is after all “the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” Can even the most committed editors say that they have never done this? But I figured that it would be more “honest”, in a way, to use a “named” account, even for any edits that I wished to remain “anonymous”. At least with a proper talk page, I reasoned, other editors would be able to leave questions or comments. So AccountNumber3 was created on 25 Jan 2011 (edits =156, deleted = 0) and AccountNumber4 was created on 22 Mar 2011 (edits = 22; deleted = 0). The planned re-allocation of watch list items between these new accounts, however, proved much more tricky and protracted than expected.

Unfortunately, when editing from my main account in July 2011, I became progressively exasperated by a series of exchanges with another editor, whom I considered was showing WP:OWN and unnecessary rudeness. When I made what I considered to be a flippant but very tiny edit on that editor’s talk page, to make this point, I was immediately accused of vandalism by a third party who appeared to be just another ordinary editor. I was so enraged by this, and by the subsequent accusation that I was being childish, that I decided to quit. I later discovered that the third party editor was, in fact, a very experienced Administrator who had simply decided not to describe himself as an administrator. I felt even more disillusioned.

But wikipedia is very addictive and I found it difficult to quit. Other editors even encouraged me to stay. So, wanting to continue editing in some way, I thought it best that I abandon my main accounts altogther. At least that way I woukd avoid any further accusations of vandalism and name-calling. I decided, therefore, to carry on with my self-imposed task of splitting up my watch-list into separate subject areas. So four more accounts were created for this purpose AccountNumber5 (8 Aug 011 (8 edits), AccountNumber6 (9 Aug 2011, 30 edits – for music articles, I managed to create a new article with this one), AccountNumber7 (12 Aug 2011, 45 edits, for fine art articles ) and AccountNumber8 (16 Aug 2011, edits 6 - for cinema articles). All rather silly names, I’m afraid, but nothing contravening account name policy.

The last account created was intended for articles on psychology and philosophy - AccountNumber9 (17 Aug 2011). But I only managed one edit with that account before it was blocked (and very quickly struck-through by the editor to whom the edit was rather pointedly directed and whom, I assume, must have reported me). All other accounts were blocked in rapid succession. Except for AccountNumber7, which was overlooked and which I therefore immediately brought to the attention of the blocking administrator. A quick look at the talkpage for that account will show that I wasn't too concerned keeping my real identity a secret.

So there it is. I’m not trying to wriggle out of the block or trying to embellish anything. It’s all just rather bizarre and pathetic truth. I suppose the single edit by AccountNumber9 might be construed as “sock-puppetry”, as I had edited that same Talk page, using my main account, albeit in a different discussion thread, only one month previously. But it has never been my intention to mislead. As none of the other edits made by the recent accounts have been reverted, this seems to suggest that they are genuine and useful. If they had been made by an anonymous i.p. address, of course, my accounts would not now be blocked. This seems to me a little ironic.

As I have said previously, I’d be quite happy to close any or all of these accounts. But I don’t think I’m guilty of intentional “sockpuppetry” in the conventional sense. I have admitted to these multiple accounts and have explained how they came to be. I fully understand why it’s important to generally stick to one account, or to at least make the link bwteen multiple accounts publicly transparent. Although the rationale for holding a legitimate “undisclosed account” (or even more than one), seems to run in slight contradiction to this policy. I am very sorry if I have wasted the resources of administrators who do a very valuable and difficult job in policing for real sockpuppets. But I was never asked for any explanation before being summarily banned forever. In fact I have not really been asked even now.

As you will see above, I have approached an administrator for advice on how long I should wait before making a fresh appeal to be unblocked. But no advice was forthcoming and I was told I was evading the block even by asking. I'm wondering if there's really any point. The humour that once seemed to exist in the wikipedia community has all but evaporated, for me at least. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Dwygyfylchi

Hi there again! A small anomaly has been thrown up by the most recent additions at Dwygyfylchi - namely that the paragraph which begins "In 1851..." refers to the existence of the parish church, but a paragraph lower down refers to the church only being built in 1888/9, some 40-odd years later. Any ideas? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I am guessing that 1888/9 was very likely to have been a rebuild date. But genuki is not clear enough as a source. Still searching. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. This webpage: [4] refers to a gazetteer entry in 1870 which stated that "The church was recently in very poor condition". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Turn of the Century Project

But since when was 1889 the turn of the 20th century? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

...Since as long as the 1900s have been the 20th century. (See Turn of the century for more info.) However, I usually find the phrase unnecessary and actually prefer your recent edit on Ludwig Wittgenstein to mine. (I've been trying to only minimally change things.) ~ Lhynard (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Um yes, but turn of the century says 1890 - 1914? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. Again, I prefer your deletion of the phrase; I was not the one who originally put "turn of the century". ~ Lhynard (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That was me actually (= talk page stalker!) As his birth date is stated in the opening sentence, there's no need to refer to it again, in any terms, later in the introduction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries. We all agree. Still unsure that the family really was "one of Europe's wealthiest families" - how many are in that list exactly? But if that's what Duffy says, then ... Martinevans123 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Ghmyrtle; I didn't see your name in the middle of Martinevans' edits. :) ~ Lhynard (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Cromwell Half crown

I agree less is more in captions, the full title is in the body anyways. I don't know much about Cromwell coinage to know if the laurel wreath was always present or a new addition, though I know it is in line to how the monarchs had usually been presented on coinage. It would be more interesting if the laurel wreath was an addition that had been absent on earlier coins. JDF6574 (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I quite agree. I'll have a look around. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You might find the this site interesting. Although obviously a commercial concern, it has some useful information about coin manufacture in the time of Cromwell and gives a very clear indication of the range of coins struck. I see also that DE-Wiki has this [5] image, also noting his Roman Toga, although it's unfortunate that the coin bears a catalogue number. Perhaps a new sub-section on the Article might be warranted. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks to be that Cromwell's portrait did not appear on coinage until a bit late in the Protectorate. I will try to find out if the portrait always appeared with the laurel wreath, but it is certainly worth noting that the portrait and laurel wreath was a change from earlier coins that showed emblems of the Republic. JDF6574 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. By all means, add a note in the article if possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice on sources?

Hello Martin. Have you got any advice on good online sources to use for articles on UK places? So far I've tended just to use my books, but they are rather limited in scope. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello PCW. My first port of call is always genuki, and then local archive sources. But after that I really have no one favourite source. I too tend to rely on books if I have any suitable. My only advice is to steer clear of commercial sites and village blogs. Apart from that - just follow you nose! I am certainly no expert on UK places or sources for these - but if you intend to concentrate your edits in one particular geographical region/area, a local expert very often soon emerges to lend a hand. Hope that helps. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look at genuki, and see what pops up there. Have you recovered from your bout of "sugar hiccup"s? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Almost. But soon after got a nasty bump on the head! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm - sounds as if you've become quite afflicted. For your head, you could try taking some Pearly-Dewdrops' Drops, and see if things improve. And if those hiccups are refusing to disappear, get someone to give you a Calfskin Smack on the back - that should do the trick.... :) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha! yes. Thanks for the advice, which I shall Treasure! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Castleton

Hello Martin Evans 123,

Thank you for inserting another photograph onto the above. I should be grateful for help on how to carry out this action. I've got as far as registering with Geograph and choosing an appropriate photo, but, then I'm stuck.

Can you help me, please?

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

P S If you have the inclination, you would understand my particular interest in Castleton, if you were to read my User page... it's not very long!

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Gareth Griffith-Jones. Your User page makes fascinating reading, I must say. You are obviously interested in Geneaology, which is probably true for many contributors here, including myself, although I think Wikipedia itself is really interested only in the genealogy of famous people!

It used to be quite a laborious process to use geograph images jere - creating a geograph account, taking a photo, uploading it to geograph, creating a Commons Account, uploading it onto Commons refering to geograph, uploading it to Wiki from Commns with a correct and then finally adding to a Wikiopedia Article, with a correct caption. It's much easier now, since most geograph images have been loaded directly into Wikipedia. Simply search Commons (you can get there from the Main Page quite easily - here's an example [6]) and add what you consider the most suitable image to the article.

When I started on here I found User:Dr Greg very helpful with advice on loading images. If he is still around I am sure he would be happy to help you if you have any technical questions. If you are thinking of creating and adding many images it is very worthwhule creating your own Commons account. I do hope that is of some help. Do let me know anyway. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Martin Evans,

Thank you for responding so promptly, and "Yes", you have been most helpful. I appreciate it very much. Do you have a particular interest in that part of South Wales? I see from your User page that you are Welsh too. Your current page is a lot of fun. I enjoyed reading it.

All the best,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(Continued) PLEASE HELP 'AN OLD DAB' WITH A DAB LINK

I have visited User:Dr Greg and I have registered with 'Commons'. I wonder if you could help me with formatting a 'dab' link on the Castleton article. I keep on trying and just can't get it to turn blue.

It is for City Bridge, Newport (2004)

I found it in the List of bridges in Wales, sub-section Gwent article.

It's a terrific structure, and it's the nearest bridge over the A48 to Castleton. Your move of the two pictures is much more logical. Best wishes,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Newport, City Bridge

I've barged in (excuse me, Martin) and corrected it - it needed simplifying, that's all. If you hover your cursor over the link in Bridges in Wales, the correct article title is revealed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure your contributions are very welcome. But don't be surprised if another editor comes along and trims the images away, as they are probably not supported by WP:MOS. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, quite probably - there are a lot of images in what is actually quite a short article. But I think sometimes, it's worth bending the 'rules' in order to be helpful and show someone how to do something... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I quite agree. The images are not "wrong" as such. If someone feels strongly enough, then I'm sure they will be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, again, Martin Evans,

Thank you for the above advice, including leading me to WP:MOS, and for your involvement in helping a new boy. Whatever the outcome, I enjoyed the exercise of adding the three photographs.

PaleCloudedWhite has been great and I am now starting to get to grips with Wiki markup.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome. You are obviously quick to learn and very enthusiastic! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have picked up on my return to my early roots. Like what you have done very much. Also you notice that I am receiving encouragement from other quarters. All help is sincerely appreciated. Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I think it's a slightly awkward article to format yet as there are more images than text. But hopefully that may eventually change. A church of that vintage, and a very large one for that denomination, should certainly have quite a history to tell, I would have thought. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I expect that you have read my conversation on my talk page with FruitMonkey on Castleton... you know that you have been awarded "the freedom of my Discussion page"... so should we need to co-ordinate, it might be better to continue there. Do you agree?

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

By all means. If you want to copy over anything from here, please do so. I must admit that I had not read your exchange with FM, but I now will do! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Redeunt Saturnia Regna

I agree that "The Golden Ages have returned" reads better than "The Golden Ages are back", but apparently it is a quotation from Virgil: Redeunt Saturnia Regna, Iam Nova Progenies Caelo Demittitur Alto which is rendered as "The Golden Ages are back, now a new generation is let down from Heaven above" in the standard English translation (see Carausius), which is the reason why I went with "The Golden Ages are back". BabelStone (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm no Virgil scholar. "Reduant" seems pretty obvious anyway. So I'll leave you to decide! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Garden of Earthly Delights

Your a skilled and thoughtful copy editor. Thank you very much for the help. Ceoil (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I was inspired to take a look at the article by a recent visit to The Prado, where I spent a considerable length of time in the Early Netherlandish gallery. When I saw that the image was due to be POTD, I thought I'd give it the once over. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Last Judgement.

I assume youve been to the Netherlandish room in the NG. These pictures are very impressive up close, esp the triptychs, esp Bosch. I saw his last judgement in Vienice about 4 years ago, and holy jesus. Reproductions dont convey the half of it. Ceoil (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree. At The Prado I found The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things most fascinating as it is literally painted on a table top. As far as the triptychs are concerned, even in a gallery, it's almost impossible to appreciate the external picture. I think ideally, the viewer should be able to approach them closed and then see them as they are opened. Of course, this is quite impractical. But yes, it's quite amazing to be within touching distance of a 500 year-old masterpiece. I found it an almost a mystical experience. I'm amazed that security is not much tighter in that gallery. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The Venice triptych is very effictively placed; in an inner tomb of a dungion, deep undergrond in the depts of one of the Dodge's prisions. So you have to walk a long way in the dark, along a very spooky pathway with cells all around you to get to it. And there it is. I didnt know it was there, it was an unexpected surprise, and the four that were with me had never heard of Bosch before, but really got into it, we were looking and finding things in the detail for ages. Its a fairly frightining piece of work, but so very beautiful. Ceoil (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

How amazing, I never knew that. I have visited Venice only once and I never knew it was there. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Youll know the next time ;) Your user page is amusing; very areobic wit, caustic even. Im alwaqys happy to see guys like you on wiki, people hat think for themselves and are focused on content. If you ever need a hand with an article, Im just a bell away. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Tis the season

MarnetteD | Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you work here at WikiP and may you have a superb 2012 on wiki and off. You are quite right that the "fading" term was too POV :-) I still have fond memories of GP as Reggie Perrin's brother-in-law. Thanks goodness for DVDs so I can see those performances again! Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a great Christmas mate and keep up the good work in the New Year!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

200px
	The Moomins (sans their Cleopatra wigs) just kept insisting that they come along especially (I think they're fans of yours for some reason...) to wish you well in 2012 – so here they are! And of course also from me as well... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I see the Moomins have decided to be demure - maybe they've gone home to get their wigs .... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they have. I'm very concerned in case they catch a chill. (Their agent is very protective, apparently) Dr.O.Farr-Kinnel(talk) 21:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right to be concerned - in my view it's a bit foolhardy going back to Finland at this time of year, wearing just one kitchen apron and a top hat between them.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha, yes. But then Lapland is the place to be. But they're pretty hardy folk really - they even have a reputation in these parts as the "Seven Deadly Finns" ! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think it's only right that the pic has been removed – after all, appearing on your talk page was rather damaging to the Moomin reputation, and of course both you and I were making lots of money out of it..... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

$$$$$ yay! hey Moomin bitchez, y'all ! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha! It's those wigs that did it - they appealed to a certain market, willing to spend top dollar know what I mean ;) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	THanks for your comment about our radio appearance, makes you realise there are people out there. Hope to see you getting involved with MonmouthpediA .... we could do with some good spirits over next 4 months. Victuallers (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Wow, my fourth award in 4 years (and 14,300 edits). Martinevans123 (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)