Dear Martinevans123, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
In Your Own Sweet Way
Thank you for quality contributions to articles on churches and halls in Wales, filled with music, for treating In Your Own Sweet Way in your own sweet way, for a clear view on "a poorly-run bureaucracy with the group dynamics of a cult ... marks will be deducted for obvious expressions of exasperation or humour" - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
These bands i put there are Southern Rock bands, ZZ Top played with them on several occasions. I am a huge ZZ Top fan and i know they belong there, Wiki Elvis (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your discerning musical support. But you might want to discuss that at the article's Talk Page and gain consensus for your addition. Personally, I'd certainly expect to see those bands playing on the same bill, perhaps many times. But I'm not sure that is sufficient qualification for the "Associated Acts" parameter of the infobox. You might first want to have a look at how that's defined at Template:Infobox musical artist. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am affraid it might be. What Jane should have done, was to take thar parrot and hit him in the head with it. But the of course, we would have never had Queen Elisabeth. But somehow I belive the reason why E, never married was because she had to look at close quarters at daddy acting Blue beard. Hafspajen (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marty, as the upper Wiki-1000 - will you look at this draft. We need jokes. I am afraid Adam is probably not going to edit [this] edition much, so we are on our own. Be a good brother, and help. You get free hands to add at least two jokes per entry. (except Mishelle, she is WP:BLP). Today is the last day (officially). You made such a good job on Goethe too.. Hafspajen (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The poster from the 1867 Paris production does not include a quote, but, if you know the original French version, there is a scene (which is not in the "standard", later Italian ones) in which the king arrives in time to see Rodrigo die. Hope this helps. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thrown by a single set of quote marks at the end. I've now replaced with parentheses. Does this mean that the scene depicted in the poster is one that was taken from the 1846 Philippe II, Roi d'Espagne play by Eugène Cormon? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you could give some encouragement to our mutual friend Ritchie here. He and I have put a lot of work into it and I really don't want to start over. He hasn't had a chance to respond but maybe you can put in a good word to get him in a positive mood again. EEng (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I need to repeat this request. Can you please come help get this back on track? Or maybe you'd like to take over the review. EEng (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC) And for once in your life be serious this time, okay?[reply]
Sorry "busy in real life"..... but, as you are so keen....
1. If was being serious, I'd say there is no time limit.
2. I'm reluctant to ever be serious about anything at Wikipedia any more (ever).
3. 1-3 may be read in any order.
I'll try and take a look later. Having managed to get one article to GA status in the space of five years, I think your confidence in my abilities in this regard may be entirely misplaced! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They might very well say there are still GA violations, but if they do I hope they'll say which piece of text violates what sections of GACR. I like you a lot, Ritchie, but for some reason there's a disconnect here. EEng (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can have Stephen or Spencer take a look. Also, I did start a discussion on the talk page about RD being stale. Any admin who posted there is at least watching the page. It's normal to have noms go up with just three supports (here we have four and the nom, and my implied support) and no objections that haven't been answered. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has completely run off the rails -- see also here. He just won't say what the problems are. If I renominate, will do a review, please? The review will go much more smoothly if it sticks to the criteria. Or, maybe better, can we talk first about what you think he's talking about? If there's actually I problem I want to fix it, but all I get is these vague statements, which I try to address, and then more vague statements. EEng (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The problems with quotations and images are still there" - I think maybe that sums up Ritchies's view? And he's got pressing real-life commitments it seems. We ought to heartily thank him for helping to get the article nearer to GA status. There are no time limits on these things, are there? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bury your head in the sand. Don't look. The best way to appreciate a WP:GA
No, there's no time limit, so if he doesn't have time now we can just suspend until he's ready again. Or we can find another reviewer to take over. But instead he's just failed the article after all this work. Keep in mind the reason the review was so big and went on so long is that so many (most even) of the points he raised weren't related to the WP:GACR. But here we are.
So "the problems with quotations and images are still there." Great. But what, specifically, are those problems??? Seriously, please help me understand. Start at [5] and tell me -- is there any issue he raised that I didn't respond to? And of my responses, is there any he objected to or pushed back on? Can you tell what problems, specifically, he's talking about? Or, put another way, Can you tell me what changes Ritchie is saying are needed to meet GA? If you can't answer that, then you'll understand my frustration -- I can't answer that either. EEng (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be serious for a bit? Not every image has to have a caption. WP:CAP When you have a paragraph describing a grand building with monumental steps topped by giant columns, and right next to it is an image of a grand building with monumental steps topped by giant columns, it seems unnecessary to have a caption. What would it say? "Widener Library"? That's helpful.
Then we have a paragraph describing that there are stacks at east, south, and west, and a giant reading room at north. Next to it is a floorplan showing stacks at east, south, and west, and a giant reading room at north. What caption would be needed? "Floor plan showing stacks at east, south, and west, and reading room at north"? What would be the point of that?
Are you going to help or not? More to the point, can you tell me what about the images or quotes doesn't meet GACR? `EEng (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to help, naturally. I'd be tempted to give the images captions, even if redundant. But what's Ritchie's beef with the quotes, exactly? You seem to be mightily at risk of getting your precious article to GA status... but at what cost? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what do you expect me to do? I gamely took on almost all suggestions, explained why others weren't appropriate, and got no substantive response except, suddenly, "time's up". So, yeah ... what's his beef with the quotes? Can you tell? Anyway, it doesn't matter. Will you review if I renominate, so we can be done with this? EEng (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only qualification for a reviewer is that you've not contributed significantly to the article and are not the nominator. The instructions are here. The criteria (WP:GACR) are simple. Please take a look. EEng (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Just to please you I've added the two captions, stupid as they are.[reply]
Hi Martinevans123. I have paraphrased the content, as it was almost identical to the source (only two words were different). -- Diannaa (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa. As ever, thank you for your care and patience. As you know, I often have diffiulty in seeing copyvio in what appear to me as statements of plain fact. I'm left wondering now, if we do limit ourselves to just the two sentences at that article, if that is the most useful or appropriate second sentence. BBC coverage of the memorial has been quite extensive this year. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Martin. I have deleted the photo from this article. Good try, but the wrong St Thomas' Church. The church in the article was demolished in 1976, it was near the centre of the city, and did not have a steeple. The aerial view shows that its site is now occupied by housing and called St Thomas' Court. The photo was of an extant church in the outskirts of the city with a steeple. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Peter and apologies for the nuisance. I should read articles more carefully! Do they hold postcard fairs in Coventry, I wonder...? 1976 not that long ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think you must mean Gerty? At 100% it looks fine to me. But just an idea anyway. Please revert if you wish. I have to alternate between 100% and something larger with most articles anyway...) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding a sample! (and **** my computer/system/whatever for not being able to handle it). I wish we could add a sample of the legendary battle with Maynard and Clifford [12] where he's just so refreshingly understated and funny next to these virtuosi of baroque and of grace , particularly in his last four bars. Sorry for spamming you; needed to be shared. ---Sluzzelintalk19:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, not heard that for a while! How wonderful that is. From Dinah Jams (1954)? (I have nothing of hers, alas). Love how her phrasing isn't resolved with the backing rhythm until more than a minute in. That video montage is a bit random! But yeah superb playing from both. Thanks! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Random, yep, and that's the album. I like Ferguson here (though he just can't help his stratospheric self) and of course Brownie can never fail, but you're right: Dinah Washington .... sigh ---Sluzzelintalk20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it's a three-way contest. To be honest it's a bit like having a bejewelled crown set with three sets of diamonds instead of just one! All a bit overpowering. Personally I'd settle for just Dinah and Terry. This is just bliss. It's like liquid all-star gold. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC) ... smash those vibes, Milt!!! .. and in case you missed it 1 hour 34 of 1967 magic (- assume BBC still owns the copyright, so can't post as external link)[reply]
(First of all, yes, the annoying randomness in the clip mainly has to do with the fact that Clifford Brown (of whom we only can fantasize what he might have sounded like becond 25) isn't pictured at all in the montage (the array does start out on the right foot, which makes the later randomness even more annoying). Thank you so much! No, I hadn't ever heard let alone viewed the 1967 gig (nor the wonderful Pennies, and you can't help but adore those 70s suits with Joe Pass etc, omg). I only listened to the first piece of the '67 thingy, and already am enchanted. Dizzy is one of the musicians I so regret never having seen live despite opportunities. As a teenager I had the lucky moment to watch Clark Terry in Lucerne. He also scatted, played an ever accelerating dialogue between trumpet (left hand) and flugelhorn (right hand), and he (charmingly) teased a member of the audience in the front row who had stuck her fingers in her ears in those rare occasions his horn screamed out loud, right in her face! (That audience member was my mother). I will listen to the rest after a night's rest. Thank you for your excellent contributions to music articles, Martin, and have a good night's rest too! ---Sluzzelintalk00:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi M. I know edit summaries are so short that they can lead to misunderstanding so I just wanted to show you the paragraph from the source about the fact that MG is only retiring from stage work.
But Sir Michael said he has no plans to put his film and screen career on hold, he announced, amid glowing reviews for his work on hit polar drama Fortitude.
BTW I am watching Fortitude. It is a bit like Broadchurch in the frozen north. In fact if you ever watch it you might want to put on a sweater cause you can feel the chill right through your TV screen. Brrrr. Apologies for any offense in mt edit summary and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk23:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a Sakotis for you! This cake promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving this cake to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Hafspajen (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is my personal most favourite song of his. It is a famous song he sang called "Because" in English. But he released the same with different lyrics "Mourir auprès de mon amour" in French and "Morir al lado de mi amor" in Spanish. Both French and Spanish roughly mean "to die near my love". Actually he was singing his own death. My love can be interpreted as an actual love or love for all those in the world who loved him. I have now also completed further chart positions for albums. I mean I may have missed some, but whatever I could find in Dutch, German, Spanish, French chart listingsetc. It is so difficult to come up with a definitive listing as he had so many releases sometimes intertwining with each other, plus using different titles in different countries. werldwayd (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kiss me!!!!!!!!!!! ... progress at Arbcom reported to be as swift as ever.Marty where are you? Kiisss me.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cricket World Cup may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
I've renominated Widener Library for GA. Since you've shown some recent interest in it, perhaps you'll take this on. Please, though, avoid the fate of so many GA reviews by clearly separating concerns related to the GA criteria from "extracurricular" concerns that can be addressed after the review is over. EEng (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help noticing that just about all the points raised at Talk:Widener Library/GA1 were satisfactorily addressed. I have read the whole of that review in detail and I regard it as having done about 90% of my work, of anyone's work, in a review. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought you had mixed Mrs McCarthy with Mrs McGuire from Grantchester which is no more than a Father Brown rip off. This is episode [15] is one of the best and similar to todays in being heart wrenching with some amusing moments. REVUpminster (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you like it or not, this is the name of the article. i didn't name it with the manufacturer name. You deleted my edit and put back a redirect, which is wrong, because whenever possible, redirects should be avoided. If you dont like that manufacturer name appears, you could have done F-16 Fighting Falcon.--Arado (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could have done that too. It's not always necessary to give the full name of the article. If you think it adds to the clarity of the article it appears in, by all means use it. I don't think it does in this case. My likes or non-likes are irrelevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I am new to Wikipedia. I have been asked by Candide Thovex's management team to add historical information to his entry. I have included YouTube videos that illustrate historic moments from his career. In most cases they come from his official YouTube channel, his main sponsor (Quiksilver), or from the channels of the events which are referenced. So, in these cases they are about as valid a source as possible and the only sources available on the Internet. If you have any suggestions as to where I may find more valid sources, please let me know.
Dave Mailman (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Dave Mailman[reply]
Hi Dave. Thanks for your message. We have only your word for that. You may need to provide evidence that you have not breached the copyright of the material posted at YouTube, even if it has been posted by "his main sponsor". But even if you do, links to YouTube videos are still not liked at Wikipedia and may be removed at any time. Since you claim to be acting on behalf of "Thovex's management team", you will also need to read WP:Conflict of interest, as you may not be impartial. A tag might also need to be added to the article talk page to explain your position to other editors. I'll copy this exchange to you Talk Page, for the benefit of other editors. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A better approach for you might be to just always do your best to get it wrong (since that seems easiest for you) and then the rest of us will just do the opposite -- sort of an anti-oracle you'd be. EEng (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, apologies. It's been broken several times, but I haven't been keeping track of who. Maybe you only "kept" doing it once :) --Stfg (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, all useful good points. Like User:Dr. Blofeld, I've got no particularly strong views. But I'm continually amazed that, while the project as whole seems 100% sold on infoboxes for bio articles in general, and for countless other types of article, it sees it as acceptable to make an exception for classical composers! I just see no logic there at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I support infoboxes were there is real informational value, but I certainly don't see the point in identiboxes, they're even worse. If we must have an infobox personally I'd prefer it to be detailed with quality facts in them. At one point I remember trying to force an infobox on composer articles and User:Kleinzach and a few others at the classical project went nuts.. I gradually came around to the nice clean look on actors/composers with a simple photograph in Tim and Cassianto's articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld19:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were mad that anybody dare touch a composer article with an infobox. I got a serious talking to for adding one! This is why dear Gerda is brave for taking this on! Kleinzach in my experience generally though is not the easiest going chap in the world..♦ Dr. Blofeld19:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What left me speech-less today is the statement by an arb (who wasn't then) that eliminating Andy from these discussions "seemed to help with disruption in the area". - (looooong silence) - I became a member of freedom of speech when I left classical music. - Opera is a different story, I left but joined again this year. All Verdi operas have an infobox, most new operas, most new performers, - a pleasure to watch. Did you know that Andy installed a self portrait when he helped to design {{infobox opera}} (example 4) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, aparently the candlit shots were very expensive, but didnt draw in sufficient viewers, comprared to say the Tudors soap. Frankly I loved Wolf Hall, as good as the Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy eps; so beutifuly shot. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know why they should have been any more expensive. I thought it was just a directorial decision. I found it quite natural and I'm not sure I even noticed it until they were discussing it with Kirsty Wark after the last episode. Another feature was the portable camera (apparently) But, yes it was beautifully shot. His wife did the music - Rylance was on Desert Island Discs two weeks ago. It seems one of their daughters died on the flight back to UK. How tragic is that. He's a great actor. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not, but thankfully the BBC website never disappoints. "In our time" does it for me. I did notice that a great many shots directly referenced his paintings. Joy. I'm guessing Wolf hall might be in the states in a week or two, thnking a DYK might be in order, though I normally shy away from that. You up? Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, he f&*g started it. Fond as I am of EE, its no wonder wiki, and actually the world, is the going to hell in ragged handbag. I feel this is that grave. Hrmpt. Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really know much at all, due to the professional editing of the IS videos. Some people have suggested that the voice of Jihadi John is dubbed, and in any case we never see the bragging man actually decapitate the victims, as happens in some videos.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)14:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey! And I just thought he composed Greensleeves. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC) ... "... once sporty and generous, became cruel, vicious and paranoid, his subjects began talking about him in a new way, and the turnover of his wives speeded up." (... sounds like some editors I know) "Does my 28 stone look big in this?"[reply]
Ok, ok, Ian. The more you reveal, the more I am thinking this was a W.P. scoop that may have embarrassed both Obama and Cameron, and almost the BBC who had to go along with it. Shucks I'm going have to go and strike out all my robust comments on the JJ Talk page! Or else just wait for the next W.P. revelation.... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reading between the lines, it looks as though members of CAGE had told the BBC pretty much the same things that they told the Washington Post, but it was the Washington Post that published first.[20] I'm off, it's been a long day.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)19:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I advise you to Bend it like Bullard. Let's not forget those other Jimmies we have all loved, including: Ruffin, Jewell, Osmond, Hendrix, Young, Wales and of course The Undertones. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC) .... and not forgetting Jimmy the raven who appeared in over 1,000 feature films...[reply]
Experts declare (WP:WEASEL) that you can learn a lot by the autocomplete results that come up when certain letters or words are entered into Google Search and the autocomplete results come up. There have been some NSFW/politically incorrect/potentially libellous examples. There was one person with a BLP whose name would produce a range of these results, but I must have had a bang on the head and forgotten which one it was, as I cannot name it here.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tell you I get no respect! I go to the doctor, I tell him "Doc, every time I look in the mirror I want to throw up! What's wrong with me?" The doctor says "Well, its not your eyesight." I tell you I get no respect!--MONGO17:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I get no respect either! I go to the doc, I say, "doc im having odd dreams. Last night I dreamed I was a wigwam, and then a circus big top" he says "you're just too tense!" No respect from anyone anymore! Irondome (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tell you I get no respect! I go to the doctor I say "Hey doc! I never have sex so how will I ever manage to have a three some!?" The doc says "use both hands!"...budda bum. I tell you I get no respect!--MONGO17:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember Dr. Young? And the DYK Hook to End All DYK Hooks --
... that Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators were abruptly withdrawn after the FDA clamped down on them?
--? Well, I think it's time we got working in that, don't you? I'm still unsure whether we can get past the notability threshold, but I take hope from this [22] (left column, top) and [23]. The major problem is that this [24] is really a primary source -- we'll need something secondary if possible on the FDA action. In fact, these, um, devices were apparently sold through the 50s and maybe the 70s, so we may have to turn the hook around to "not withdrawn despite" etc. Why don't you see if you can come up with anything. EEng (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I ask the doc, "Hey doc....what's the difference between a rectal thermometer and an oral one? Doc says "The taste".....booo! Lousy joke!--MONGO20:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor, Doctor I keep getting pains in the eye when I drink coffee.
Sorry, no idea. Not even looking at Main Page! Sticky mouse? But I saw nothing and got no confirmation pop-up. Please disregard. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC) /... just tried to self-revert, but you beat me to it. Many thanks.[reply]
You cannot walk into a hotel at any time of day and demand a meal of your choice, as the Waldorf Salad episode shows. Hollywood stars would get round this problem by having their own catering trucks on location, but whether the BBC licence fee stretches to this is another matter.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)13:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when JC (not Jesus Christ, the other one) loses his job and goes over to ITV or Sky, he can have it written into his contract that he has his own catering truck. It's an ill wind...--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)13:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When a hotel guest behaves like this, the traditional response is for the staff to pee in the soup and w@nk in the mayonnaise. Needless to say, the staff at the hotel in question are far too cultured to do this sort of thing.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)14:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that none of the mainstream media has pointed this out, as it is only a few mouse clicks away. My local pub chain offers steak meals any time that it is open, and 10 PM would not be a huge problem (mind you, the frozen chips are a bit crap). It is surprising that the brasserie closes at 8:45 PM.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a steak meal from the pub in question. It was OK but might not have satisfied Jeremy Clarkson, who (allegedly) wanted an "8 oz sirloin with fondant potatoes, pan-fried wild mushrooms, grilled cherry tomatoes and peppercorn sauce."--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Standing on the golf course, dressed in cups of tea I had a little problem With Operation Yewtree I tried to ask the golf girl If she could fancy me But later in the courthouse They threw the book at me Banged up with the Glitter Taken up the ... no, I'll stop there actually
One my favourite albums ever. Just so impeccably English (now this is VERY high praise coming from a Welshman!) I have yet to hear "the 5.1 thingy" for this album, but if it's anything like what's been done with Talking Heads, it's probably a revelation. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC) p.s. can Morgan Pressel sue for that?[reply]
ALSO, there's that really distinctive organ sound (hard to believe it's a Hammond, but I guess it must be) that goes thorough all the Canterbury stuff - Hatfield and the North, Robert Wyatt, Soft Machine, etc, etc. - if you know what I mean. Just magic. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I heard this album in my formative years and I thought, "wow, so you can have rock that's not got huge pounding guitar riffs, but has some kind of enchanted woodland feel to it!" (... and then I heard Pink Floyd and realised you can actually have both). But I've always been very partial to that organ sound. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ... "Instrumentally, David Sinclair's fuzztone Hammond organ sound is a key ingredient of the early Caravan albums and his playing is the dominant instrument on them." apparently ... [reply]
Given that the band comes from round these parts, there something of local heroes I guess. I saved Jim Leverton from AfD (or was it just a rejected AfC?) who's played with them, and I've met a few of Rocky and the Natives, a local band that Geoff Richardson plays in when he's not Caravanning. PS: The 2001 CD reissue sleeve notes say the first date of recording was 14 September 1970. If that's an unreliable source then ik ben een Neelander. Umm.... Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC the CD sleeve notes don't say anything other than his mention in the credits, so what's there is cited almost verbatim. However, my notes for If I Could Do It All Over Again... credit Pye Hastings with "impersonation of a friendly gorilla", so when I get round expanding that, it should definitely go in! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me of a bad joke, a bloke goes onto a beach with Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter. His mate looks at him and says, "you idiot, I said bring a pair of _s_peedos! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What did Margaret Thatcher and Jimmy Savile have in common?
And talking of strangling someone, I'm not going to bother at ITN any more, since the Encyclopedia Britannica is apparently just a "lame mirror of Wikipedia" (how and when did that happen??) that can't be used too many times in the same article section. And no-one can explain objectively (let alone write down somewhere) how good an article has to be to be linked from the Main Page. So now we have a lovely Cervantes patchwork quilt. Apparently it's "the very antithesis of a "quality article"". So hardly worth pissing on, even if it were on fire. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. Would now somebody bold see what I tried to awake, and perhaps do it? There should now be no serious objection, just I can't do it myself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Faulpelz seem to be strictly for men, no idea what a lazy woman would be called. He (Siegfried) has not seen a woman before, his mother died when giving birth, and he was raised only by a male dwarf. Nonetheless, he will kiss this woman and then she wakes up for "Everything you can sing I can sing louder" and "Love on the rocks" (see Anna Russell). - Anyway, look at Don Giovanni, back to Mozart, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Martinevans123. You have new messages at Hafspajen's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi. See my last note on the revision. Doesn't belong in the same list of major corporations. It's a small baking shop. You could put it at the beginning of the Culture section, mentioning it in the same way as the MTV episode is mentioned. Where you currently put it is WP:UNDUE. Onel5969 (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Deleting something wholesale, because it's deemed to be "non-notable", is not quite the same as simply re-locating it because it's WP:UNDUE. Does everything else in that sectiom have a supporting source? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting something because it's non-notable is perfectly acceptable. And where you were inserting it, it was clearly not notable. In it's current location, you could add a citation, but since their is a wikilink to the article, which clearly shows it was a tv episode, you might not even need a citation. Onel5969 (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary told me categorically that it was non-notable and unsourced. Might have been easier to just put it in the right place? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would have been easier for you to put it in the right place. I don't think it belongs in the article at all. I think references like that (in this and other articles) make the subject seem less important. By putting trivial stuff in articles, it makes the subject seem desperate to be noticed, which in my opinion, this article does not need. Take it easy. Onel5969 (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your 'subtle' thanks to me. I like to think I have a long tether, but some days it does get stretched beyond reality. Cheers and regards,
I'm sure I would have responded in the same, or possible more "colourful", way. Now run along and be a little more careful with your use of capital letters, would you? Thanks, so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's always the Spanish word for "year" for those of us without a tilded n on our keyboards and who can't be arsed to type unicode. Works well when asking someone how old they are in Spanish. Softlavender (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of ME's easter-eggs above reminded me of an ambition I've had for some time: to bring Hell, Norway to GA, thus qualifying it for DYK. The mind boggles at the orgy of potential hooks e.g. "Temperatures in Hell can reach −25 °C (−13 °F) during winter", "There are just over 1300 people in Hell", "The road to Hell is paved with...", "There are frequent daily tours of Hell", "Miss Universe 1990 was from Hell", that kind of thing. Who wants to help? EEng (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK; we try. More people can go to hell, I knew one personally, who is dead now. Hope this can be the way. Though, my skills are on the illustrative side. Hafspajen (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious about this statement, simply because I haven't heard that phrase before in reference to airliner accidents: "I think there may be a 'control gradient' in the final moments of an aircraft crash."
It's simply the idea that the aircraft is not wholly "under control" until the moment it's "out of control". Rather that the pilot's inputs are still having an effect, but are having less and less of an effect, until there is catastrophic failure (or collision). It's a bit simplistic, I'm afraid. And in the era of fly-by-wire, this may be rather brief and may not be easy to see. If the aircraft is aerodynamically unstable, it may be very brief indeed. That's all. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for the prompt reply. Now that I understand what you meant, my next question (again, if you can spare the time -- if not, then I won't be offended if you do not reply further) is if you are aware of any official accident report, or other documents from the FAA, or equivalent regulatory authorities, that discuss that "control gradient" concept. It would be an important report to add to my library, if I can find it. EditorASC (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As to an airliner being "aerodynamically unstable," right now I can think of only two: The MD-11 and the B-727 at higher altitudes (dutch roll problem). If you know of others, I would appreciate that kind of info too. Cheers.
LOL! Well thanks for your help. I'll give it a go with those names combined with human factors research. I might find some real interesting stuff, enjoying the search in the process, because human factors in the airline industry has been a subject I have been deeply interested in for many years. Cheers. EditorASC (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the Land of Grey and Pink has been nominated for Did You Know
That is very gratifying and, of course, all I ever aim for. I wish more editors had a sense of homour like yours (or even a just sense of humour at all.) I guess if one's ego gets so big, there's simply no room for one. I've been enjoying your image gallery lately. Some real gems there. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC) p.s. I would certainly never claim to have "diverged from chimps." [reply]
Ah yes, I must have missed all those "tell-tale signs of someone trying to use constructions and language that he doesn't really understand." Probably because I didn't understand them. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Said the boy (tired of the same bedtime stories about Australia all the time) to his father: "What did you bring that book, which I do not wish to be read to from about Down Under, up for?" EEng (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think of my user page as being for the select few. BTW, it never occurred to me that "they" would actually let this stay, but it has. [36]EEng (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some editors might object that the hook is too strong, as the article says only: "It has been suggested that this work was painted during his mobilization, or shortly thereafter." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually quite grateful, as you prompted me to correct my spelling. Thanks for the note. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC) ... it's a shame that the "Notification" flag could not self-cancel if it saw that a revert had been reverted![reply]
The request for formal mediation concerning Honorific nicknames in popular music, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
The "contributor" you are defending is a vandal and has now been blocked. So you may have to wait a while to get a reply at the Talk Page. I don't particularly enjoy being called a "fucker", even in Italian. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC) ... care to translate this quaint edit summary "hai rotto i coglioni brutto stronzo". Hmmm.[reply]
Um, I didn't defend anyone. Take a step back and relax - his crappy behaviour does not justify repeatedly removing his talk page comment. Just explain the way things work on Wikipedia and move on. Simple. Edit warring accomplishes nothing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, simple. And you want me to "move on", yeah? I think that multiple sock should have been blocked after his third edit. But what do I know. Did you enjoy the translation? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's a dynamic IP, which is rather different than intentional sock puppetry. Second, of course he deserved to be blocked. Finally, you are free to ignore my advice all you want. I am just saying you accomplish nothing by working yourself up about what some idiot on the internet wrote, and you accomplish nothing by repeatedly reverting him, especially on a talk page. You'll save yourself a lot of stress by reverting a couple time, requesting a block or page protection if that doesn't work, and then moving on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shucks, and I thought it was my Talk Page. I didn't see anyone else keen to revert what I thought was mindless persistent vandalism (partly in Italian). But who's "worked up"? I just don't particularly want comments like "Hai rotto il cazzo loro erano e sono clandestini non sono migranti" at the top of my Talk Page. But thanks for your concern. Martinevans123 (talk)
I was referring to the reasonable comment (minus the edit summaries) left at article talk page, not anything on your talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, O merciful admin, for not blocking an insignificant worm like Martin!
You quite clearly violated 3RR. The IP insulting you on your talk page does not give you the liberty to repeatedly revert an attempt to express his opinion about article content at the article talk page. If I wanted to block you, I wouldn't need to take it to ANI, but go on thinking I was unreasonable for even daring to point out your obvious policy violation if you like. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too kind. So that was all good content added to the article as well, was it? And of course not "intentional sockpuppetting", just a nasty coincidence caused by a dynamic ip. Perhaps you'd prefer me just to retire? -- Ever yours, Disgusted of Monza and Brianza (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While one might argue that being serious on Martin's page is an exercise in futility, if an IP were to arrive in a conversation I was involved in and make obscene comments about my parentage, my scatological habits and alleged claims of masturbatory behaviour, I would think "well it takes one to know one", laugh, and ignore it. Works every time. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ThaddeusB, the first edit that the Italian blocked IP editor made to the migrant ships article was this one, in which they wrote, "the motherfucker rotto in culo Matteo Renzi said "F**k y'all italian, i don't give a f**k of y'alls". Subsequent edits - all of which were reverted by Martin - were similar, reinstating lines that included "if they want to migrate in my f**kin' country they must enter legally", with edit summaries such as "don't touch my shit"[37] and "you are a fucker"[38] directed towards Martin. It would be peculiar for any editor to conclude anything other than that this is a vandal who will be blocked, and as I understand it, all contributions by blocked editors can be removed, so it doesn't seem to me that Martin has done anything against policy. However even if you believe that, strictly and technically speaking, Martin has broken some rule, it seems to me that for him to do so in this context is wholly reasonable, whereas for you to come to his talkpage to lecture him seems rather unreasonable, not to mention unfeeling. Did you think to thank him for trying to keep the article clean of all that "fuckers" etc.? Or would you have preferred he went through the lengthier processes of page protection etc., and let the "fuckers" etc. remain? I suggest that rather than picking on valued and productive editors like Martin, you instead concentrate on just blocking the vandals. Comments such as "If I wanted to block you, I wouldn't need to take it to ANI" are crass and belittling; if that's the kind of 'reward' Martin gets for tackling vandals, I'm not surprised that he has removed himself from the project (hopefully only temporarily). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Martin's wikibreak notice refers to vandals [39] but he's being too gentle. The real reason we may lose this valuable contributor is another high-handed lecture from an admin more concerned with form than substance. Good going. EEng (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, shall I jump in? I just had coffee and a piece of chocolate cake so I'm ready for anything. All of you are right, though some are maybe less wrong than others. I agree with Thaddeus's comment ("let it go"--and let the admins handle it), while I understand Martin's response perfectly. I read Thaddeus's comment not as a warning but as advice; it seems obvious to me, though, that the spirit in which the comment was intended was not the spirit in which it was received, and that's understandable considering what Martin was called by the Italian IP. As an admin, I have to say that the many reverts weren't a good choice, since the content itself wasn't so bad, even if the edit summaries were unacceptable--which points at blocking, yes, as Thaddeus says, but doesn't necessitate reverting, since the edit summaries aren't "on" the talk page, so to speak. So sure, it was a violation of policy, technically, and I would have let it slide just like Thaddeus did, and I would probably have left a similar note as well, though I think it's always a good idea to include a beer or a piece of chocolate-covered bacon with such a note. (This sentence is not a run-on.)
I hope Martin will come back soon, that the anger will subside, and that both editors understand they're the good guys. And let's not lose track of what really matters. None of us are drowned, and none of us (I suppose, I hope) had to flee our homes in the way these folks did, for the reasons that they did. Our job at Wikipedia is to report the facts, all the facts, and do it properly. Can I sidetrack? A few years ago I had the good fortune to attend a reading by James Zwerg (look him up for context), who was asked if he saw progress since the Civil Rights movement. He was quite adamant that it was ongoing and focused on "illegal immigration" immediately, saying emphatically, "there are no illegal immigrants" (a statement no doubt inspired by his own life, his particular brand of Christianity, and his blatant disregard for bureaucratic, political language that denies basic human rights and decency: a higher law). Martin, we could use your help. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was indeed intended as advice, not a warning, and I only responded further to clarify. Obviously I failed... Like everyone else, I hope Martin returns after he has a chance to cool off. However, I think some of you are completely missing my point here. When established editors are treated with immunity to the point where someone even commenting on their policy violations is viewed with contempt, then there is something wrong with Wikipedia. When edits like [40][41] are reverted because of the editor's article edits, that is quite clearly not proper. Yes, the article edits were bad, but taking it to the talk page is exactly what someone is supposed to do. Only after Martin chose to remove the (legitimate) talk page comment did the insults here & at the article talk page start. If he had just responded to the comment instead of deleting it (or ignored it if he didn't want to respond), things probably would have never escalated as far as they did. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The troll here are you. I'm not a xenophobic or racist, so someone ban this troll." Some might see that as a little inappropriate for a talk page discussion? But it seems you don't, as you've not challenged it in any way. Perhaps because it's not grammatically correct? And of course, it's still unclear if that was all one person, enjoying their personal journey of abuse and disruption, or several different persons all located in Milan. I guess we'll never know. But I'm just off to the shops for some early lo shopping di Natale. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I can't link to this, since that would be a copyvio, wouldn't it? That's two fucking heroes, right there, of the kind that seems to be in short supply. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO agree with esteemed Drmies...mostly. But MONGO already missing the greatly esteemed MartinMan. Excuse MONGO APEMAN attempt at Welsh but...Byddwn fwyta ar waed fandaliaid--MONGO15:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A good one, thank you. SG? Emma Ayres, Bratschistin und spätere Hörfunkmoderatorin, radelte allein von England nach Hongkong. (German Main page today and tomorrow), translated in memory of GFHandel, who - as a consequence of a certain discussion on Bach - phrased a little more explicitly what you compared to the freezing of hell. (DYK that another editor said "would be a cold day in hell" about arbcom apologizing to a victim?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've marked this file as free with the rationale "the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia". Unless you can prove that Decca / Universal really have submitted an OTRS ticket for the sample, this is not the case. See File:Firth of Fifth.ogg for an acceptable fair use rationale. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I should probably be blocked for such a transgression. I had thought the wizard always added a fair use rationale (and I'm not sure why it doesn't.) Can anyone add that or only the uploader? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can edit the file and put a valid FUR in. I don't know why the wizard doesn't do that. File copyrights are probably the most confusing thing on Wikipedia and the easiest way to bite newbies, as anything that doesn't comply with copyrights has to be nuked ASAP, no questions asked. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I think I may need revisit all of my audio sample uploads in the near future.... I've reverted it from the article for now - you might wish to tweak it a bit and re-add it, if you think it's good enough. I must say your description for the "Firth of Fifth" sample looks like a Masters thesis compared with my hasty back-of-fag-packet scrawl. As per my edit summary, I'd be happy to construct any alternate/others from Land of Grey and Pink, if you have strong suggestions. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to cobble something together for a sample of "Nigel Blows A Tune" from "Nine Feet Underground" showing the Hammond going at full blast. Oh, a while back I mentioned I had a gig that had a Hammond at the venue ... turns it out it was a C-3 with a Leslie 147 (?) and at times it sounded just like David Sinclair's solos. Uncanny. Somebody had a camera so hopefully pictures will leak out. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure we'll all be eagerly thumbing through copies of Hello! and Harper's Bazaar, while we're down at the salon, hoping for a glimpse, dearie. Meanwhile I'd appreciate any corrections you could make to the ogg file, to show me clearly where I am going wrong. I always try and target tracks that are at least 5 minutes long, as anything less than a 30-second sample always seems a bit futile. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The FUR is okay now, but personally I think you might be better off with a composite of the track - 10 seconds of Richard's singing with acoustic, cross-faded into the start of a stereotypical David Hammond solo. I'm afraid my Mac has died so I've lost all my mp3s, so I'll have to work out where exactly the CDs are buried, so that might be an easier task for you to do as things currently stand. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness me, that sounds like a bit of a complicated game! I'd be happy to upload another - just give me the track and the times. Is there a limit on the number of samples one should add for a single album article? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hard limit, but for an album like this you're probably better off with one. Always remember that non-free content is against one of the principles of Wikipedia so using it is very much a privilege, and if people think the audio can be represented equally well as text, that'll take priority. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I've never understood how music can be equally represented by text as by audio. Even 30 seconds is usually a severe challenge to me. Oh well, at least we've got a basic sample for now, at least until you find your CDs! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to appreciate his efforts, including yours and the way you both looked EEng after. You may want to read WP:ARC#Admin tool misuse: Bgwhite, I have mentioned both incidents of his first 2 blocks. We might have solved a lot of problems if we had taken some serious action then. Still never too late. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doing it this way is still copyvio, since the sentence structure (with a minor quote) was exact ... the author needs his own article anyway, so I shortened the whole thing. We don't need that much detail on Hayes in Sacks' article. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poor old Ollie, eh? He waits 75 years before he "allows himself to fall in love" and then even that subtlety is swept away here in the cause of avoiding copyvio. I'd never have thought I'd be giving credit to Vanity Fair for the delicacy of their writing, but your ruthlessly efficient tidy-up has proved me wrong. I'd agree we wouldn't want so much detail about Hayes, if he had an article. But he doesn't. And until he does, I would have thought a mere 12 words would be at least instructive. Still, I guess if the article is, as you say, "still dreadful", then no-one will really notice. Not least poor Oliver. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Vanity Fair article gave the fellow a sentence. And didn't even tell us where that relationship ended, so to me, the whole thing is undue sensationalism, until/unless someone reads the book and figures out if there is more worth saying. If someone cares that much, they could write his article! Vanity Fair writes a whole article on Sacks, but Wikipedia-- true to form-- cherrypicks one sensational tidbit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are interested in getting the book? I don't like the "teaser" aspect of the writeup-- it may get you to buy the book, and that's what that edit did :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, now I understand! A tasty little bit of (very subtle) Vanity FairKnopf promo work, eh? You lucky thing, I'm very envious. I would get the book, but I'm too busy reading up about Jeremy Vine's basketball career break. But feel free to send me one of your free copies. B. Twaddle123 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously! Glad you see it now. They hint at a relationship, but tell us nothing ... was there even a relationship? Or just an infatuation? Does this guy even belong in Sacks' article? For that matter, is it a BLP vio? We have to buy the book to found out! Only on Wikipedia ... so better for someone who cares to write an article on the fellow. (That would not be me :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you never know... maybe VF will do a feature on Billy Hayes and you'll be tempted to buy his autobiography. I'm sure there's a lot more material in that Sacks article that could be used to expand the article, without the need to buy the book at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martinevans123, what is the reason you resist my attempt to simplify and combine your edit into the previous paragraph? As you can imagine, new information has appeared dozens of times for this event. Every time it does, we haven't been adding it to the article into a new paragraph with the date, that would be too laborious to read. (I am not new to this article; I have been one of the primary editors of this article from the beginning.) Prhartcom (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just some very dodgy piece of fancrufted-synthetic-blog-rambling I stumbled across the other day. Don't worry about it - it's bound to get RfD-ed! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC) ... but I agree, a great video and very inventive lyric![reply]
Hahahahahaha. Thanks so much. A very plausible alternative explanation of course, although I couldn't say definitively that the guy in the toilet was actually the captain. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC) But, wow - you get so much legroom and such a generous aisle width! Is that club class or business, I wonder? Almost as tempting as those foxy Air Dorises[reply]
For your arrival at heated discussions where you inject much needed humour. I have found myself chuckling at some of your recent comments to do with UKIP and the Moors Murders; especially here and here. Cheers! CassiantoTalk19:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's the loonies who stand as independents who I like. When I was a kid living in a small village in Essex, there was a woman who walked her pet duck every morning around the roads. She lived off the land and made nettle soup, wild berry pie and, on the odd occasion, ate fresh(ish) road kill as a treat. She ended up standing for the Greens where she just dipped the majority vote. I still think the votes she received were people taking the piss out of her without her actually knowing it. Also, it's good to see a certain, recent editor who cropped up at the Moors Murder talk page, turn up after 35 seconds and offer his opinion on Farage. We suspected it all along of course. CassiantoTalk19:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better translation in the circumstances, I agree. But if you haven't yet encountered marc, sip with caution … great caution. Awien (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about ballet: not without irony that now "my Romeo" is in DYK position 1, matching the dancer on my talk (great woman, RIP). Found an excellent image of him today, look for Cranko Era. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just the 2015 one by the look of it. Referring to UK elections by their number appears to be rather unique to Wikipedia; we probably shouldn't be doing it. Alakzi (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lol, u gotta love Krishnan Guru-Murthy - "he ain't cool 'cos he ain't got no hat". Pharrell's very articulate isn't he, (apart from that sheep reference, of course). If you think moving the article back makes it all fine again - by all means, go ahead. I'm stepping back from this one! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't like my wording? Well then fix it to your liking. Don't like a source? Well then find ones that satisfy you. You can help out you know. Cadencool22:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did fix it. Even if you like something, it's sometimes possible to improve it? That's how Wikipedia works, isn't it? Any my edit summary "needs better source" applied to my own addition - previously there was no source at all. On second thoughts, I've taken that link out, as copyright is not clear. Now that you're here, what else would you like to scold me for? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's always possible to improve edits and yes that is how it works around this madhouse. Thanks for fixing it, it's much better than the way I wrote it, that's for sure. As for your edit summary, I read it wrong I must admit. Apologies for that. Cadencool20:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth is adding "<ref>[WW2 Langham training dome restoration complete]</ref> a reference/citation?
Wikipedia:Citing sources states "A full citation fully identifies a reliable source and, where applicable, the place in that source (such as a page number) where the information in question can be found. For example: Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 1. This type of citation is usually given as a footnote, and is the most commonly used citation method in Wikipedia articles."
Also above where your "reference" is, the article says "The concrete structure has been restored and a museum has been installed" so you're just repeating something already said in the article.
Do you want the reference details or not (it's easily done by a User:Dispenser/Reflinks)? You think all references have to have a page number? You think that adding sources which match the material in an article is " just repeating something already said in the article"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "<ref>[WW2 Langham training dome restoration complete]</ref>" is not a reference.
If you are trying to reference some part of the following section in the article "Langham Dome, which sits on the edge of the former base, is one of only six remaining training domes in the country and was built in 1942. Film of enemy planes was projected onto its walls for target practise. The concrete structure has been restored and a museum has been installed, following grants from English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund", you need to say where you got the information from such as a book, website or anything else that is reliable like a plaque from an appropriate group/company.
Hi, I'm a bit puzzled that you've thrown out the image of George Ewart Evans that I've loaded with an NFUR - obviously it'll soon be deleted if we don't restore it. I think it a strong, characterful portrait of the man. Is he one of your relatives? If so, perhaps that would explain why you have marked the 'new' image as "own work" despite its also being "from an exhibition at the Museum of East Anglian Life, Stowmarket, Suffolk"? If you don't own the copyright, it'll be a candidate for speedy deletion! If it were my choice, I'd at once restore the old image; otherwise, I'd have thought an NFUR would be needed for the new one. Your thoughts? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate that the NFUR image is of such low quality. You'd think an unmarked image in a permanent public exhibition stand might be amenable to release into the public domain. I added "own work" as I took the photo. Perhaps it's worth formally contacting Evans' estate. The very helpful guides at Abbot's Hall did not seem too bothered. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm distraught that you found my reaction to your suggestion regarding the entry on that nice Mr Wales discouraging. That was not my intention. My intention was to be encouraging to you and my hope was that others would join in the discussion. I did once add something myself to the entry on JW, and when last I looked it was still there. Nevertheless, it (the page) seems to be on an awful lot of peoples' watchlists, which in turn invites a certain .... caution, when adding stuff. I STILL haven't listened to the Desert Island Discs episode you commended (still haven't really recovered from the death of Roy Plomley). Still might. But if you yourself are even halfway serious about improving the JW Page, I'm pretty sure that there are things you could take from the Young/Wales exchange that could be added as sources for things that currently appear as unsourced assertions in the article itself. Though worded like that, I appreciate it might feel a tad low profile. Anyhow, please don't feel discouraged. There are plenty of wikipedia contributors who should feel more discouraged than they do, but - in my opinion which is the only one to which I have access on the subject - you are not, and never were, one of these. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One has got to admit though, that they were cleverly linked. You really have inspired me. Thank you for providing the entertaining laugh though, much appreciated. Wes Mouse | T@lk13:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my removal of Wittgenstein's cause of death from the infobox. Please explain why. I'm a newbie, so I looked at the Manual of Style for Infoboxes and it says that infoboxes should summarize only key facts. Most biographical infoboxes on Wikipedia do not include cause of death. Was Wittgenstein's cause of death especially notable? It merits only a single sentence in the entire article and I see no citation that would indicate that his prostate cancer was especially notable. We wouldn't want to clutter up the infobox with favorite color, shoe size, names of pets, etc., so why cause of death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantagenarian (talk • contribs) 22:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no very strong feelings. It's just that your removal did not seem, to my mind, justified by your edit summary. Personally I don't regard "cause of death" as comparable with "favorite color, shoe size, names of pets". But I agree that it has little bearing on his work or his notability, perhaps none whatsoever. I will not revert you again. But I would much prefer you to open a discussion thread at the Talk Page. Thanks for looking at MoS Infoboxes. And thanks for taking the time to post here. (Please try and remember to sign your posts). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC) p.s. umm, a newbie yes, you've made a total of 12 edits 13 edits in 4 years?[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clearer- It's only a little thing, but as the page is at GAC, it's something which should be sorted. WP:SAMPLE partly explains how we should interpret WP:NFCC#3 in the case of music samples. Namely, they generally should be no more than 10% of the song's length or 30 seconds (whichever is shorter), and they generally should be no more than 64kbps. This particular sample is fine with regards to length, but its quality is, currently, too high. This can be fixed using Audacity, as explained on the MOS page just linked. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I'm sure those massed bootleggers and pirate samplers will be queuing up to rob this sample off Commons. I'll upload a new one as soon as I can. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not very technical - how does 22.05KHz compare with 64kbps? Should all samples have rates labelled in kbps instead of Khz? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the sample is 154 kbps. You can see it right underneath the player (where the actual image would be shown if this was an image upload). I don't know if/how KHz compares to kbps, but I'm not sure why it matters? Josh Milburn (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And why is this "generally should be no more than 64kbps"? What are the exceptions? If it were a hard limit, then uploading above that limit ought to be disabled by the upload wizard, with an appropriate error message? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably escaped your attention but I think it's safe to say that I've worked on the content and presentation of the linked articles in just about every DYK hook for the past I-don't-know-how-long. But of course that's irrelevant to some. And who said being mediocre was bad? It's better than fucking crap. It's better than just about half of things after all... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness me, after all these long months, Rambler! Talk of the devil and all that..... Yes, my attention span is rather low, as you probably know. And no, I-don't-know-how-long either, I'm afraid. But almost every DYK hook does sound incredibly impressive. You have my every sympathy. I'm hoping, one day, to raise the standard of my own pathetic contributions from "fucking crap" to the heady heights of "mediocre". In fact, I'm hoping there's a "Barnstar of Mediocrity" on offer (hint, hint). But thanks for dropping by and lightening the tone so. Gosh Rambler, you are a card! Tee-hee. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC) ... and if you do come again, make sure you don't bring that moron EEng with you.[reply]
I didn't expect anything more, but sometimes presenting just a very select part of the story as some kind of de facto evidence of non-participation in a process is clearly disingenuous. Have a great day, glad to see the Belgians took one hell of a beating. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, another one already! I have skimmed over it, but I am loath to make any detailed input. Your analysis seems perfectly fair. It's a bit like max speed all over again. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My most recent edit wasn't correcting NPOV persay, but I just added it into the edit summary anyway - fast paced edit. I believe that my edit was more neutral anyway, as the nature of her interview has already been established in the section, so it makes sense to move onto the next topic without lingering on the aggression in the interview. Wondering about your thoughts. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 15:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That HuffPo source is pretty unforgiving. It says ".. cringe-inducing interview ... grilled by the Sky News anchor ... Burley gave Varney short shrift as he attempted to answer". Maybe other sources are kinder? In which case they could be used. I chose the word "assertive" thinking that was actually toning down from "aggressive". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Australia so I really don't know who Dale Winton is. I've seen Chris Evans though and he's clearly not right for the job. Personally, I think this bloke is the only one right for the job. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.
What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.
This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.
Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is often a perception of never the twain about "admins" and "content editors", usually quite misplaced. But I do hope we don't "lose" a good editor. I sometimes think adminship should be strictly fixed term. My very best wishes and good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We shall see...I will be easing into my new role over the next few days. I don't see any reason why I wouldn't be able to continue at least some of my larger-scale editing, as it's fairly easy to fit into the cracks of my day. Regardless, as of now I'm planning on a fixed-term adminship myself...I don't see myself spending longer than two years in the role, tops, honestly. But again...we shall see. I'm in complete terra incognita now. Just waiting for the dragons to show up. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.21:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... or even"Plumber's crack" a plumber butt or plumber's crack (Canadian, Australian and American English) and builder's bum (British English). Wishing you the best of good luck over/with the next "two years". — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| —08:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was a very stupid edit summary. Passers-by are likely to misconstrue it as racist. For myself, as I have already said, I think Indonesian schoolchildren are as bright as any others. DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your warm note of appreciation. I look forward to your non-racist edit summaries. I expect those highly intelligent Indonesian and Korean school kids, who are just passing by, are ripping up their Cornish primers in disgust, even as we speak. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC) I'm always careful to use an edit summary in case you think "what I'm saying is crap." [46][reply]
I liked yoursigh.Sir John Tenniel's illustration of the Caterpillar for Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is noted for its ambiguous central figure, whose head can be viewed as being a human male's face with a pointed nose and pointy chin or being the head end of an actual caterpillar, with the first two right "true" legs visible. "And do you see its long nose and chin? At least, they look exactly like a nose and chin, that is don't they? But they really are two of its legs. You know a Caterpillar has got quantities of legs: you can see more of them, further down." Carroll, Lewis. The Nursery "Alice". Dover Publications (1966), p 27. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| —06:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have continued with this far too long; I appreciate your feelings have been ruffled, for which I am sorry. But I didn't get where I am today by waffling on about caterpillars. Take the afternoon off! "CJ" (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martinevans123,
When I watched the movie Independence Day this week, the line adapted from Dylan Thomas' poem jumped out at me. I felt it was clear. Jan Mair saw it that way and wrote about it. I think that the text in the article is clear that this is not a lengthy quotation, and it says "adapting Thomas' line", so readers should understand that it is derived. The Wikipedia standard for documentation does not require that the documentation be easily accessible. If you object, I will go gentle into that good night. Pete unseth (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm equally inept to all things technical. Having said that, I've never been one for stealing from a church, but in this case, I'm sure his reverence won't mind. I'll leave some money for the church roof fund or sweep the nave out or something. CassiantoTalk18:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly it was added to the MoS without discussion in 2013, but only to make the reference to Bill Clinton match his article, not as an intimation that this was correct style. This shouldn't be used to mandate the ludicrous addition of obvious nicknames and diminutives to full names in the lead. It has sadly become very common recently, but it makes the encyclopaedia look amateurish in the extreme. This is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Necrothesp. I had no idea. That's a very useful piece of information. I'm not sure if that's necessarily "amateurish" or merely "disdainfully pompous", but I'll await an outcome from that discussion. I see some have escaped. Maybe we'll be able to trim off a bit of the "lede fat" here and there, or will that be a red light for some? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think just because he has a beard, that I think he's Scottish (he wears a Cowboy hat, rather than a Tam o' shanter); one would think, judging from his name 'McHenry', that he's Scottish.Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat[reply]
Yes, in social psychology experiments anyway. Although it's not clear what an ethics committee would allow these days. I'm sure that your edit wasn't necessarily wrong, it does make it simpler for a non-specialist to understand, So I wasn't sure whether I should flag it up, or not! Hope you are well, Chillum. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You reinserted a section in Alan Titchmarsh entitled 'Controversy'. Are you aware that the BLP policy specifically states that section headers should be neutral? I am well aware that as an IP my edit would be flagged as section blanking. I just hoped that people wouldn't blindly undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.198.80 (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Had you considered trimming that section instead of deleting it wholsale? Or even of opening a thread to discuss at the article Talk Page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it seemed a storm in a teacup which didn't fit anywhere else in the article. Did you consider that you are reinserting something which is specifically warned against by the BLP policy? If you believe it is important then by all means try and work it into the article properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.198.80 (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you think it can be "worked into the article properly"? Perhaps the material, which concerns his comments about older women in the media, could be integrated into the chronological section on his career in television. Except that it's not really related to that, but arose from an Observer interview. But even that might be better than just deleting it wholesale. Your own view, that it was "a storm in a teacup", is not really relevant, but the public reaction, by such people as Miriam O'Reilly, is. And that passage is supported by three WP:RSs, so I don't see that it's really contentious. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have not explained how having a section entitled "Controversy" meets BLP. And just because something is in reliable sources doesn't mean it isn't undue weight (comments which provoked a riposte at the time but nothing since?) I'll go ahead and delete it again. Like I say, if you think it can be worked into the overall narrative and comply with BLP then fine. But at the moment it doesn't accord with policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.198.80 (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it could be worked into the article, I'd be very happy to see you do that, instead of mechanistically deleting it again just to prove a point. You can then accord it the weight you think it deserves. As you will see, it's no longer called "Controversy". I wonder had you ever considered creating a named account - that way your edits might attract less unwanted attention. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Can't believe it: this minute I responded to a post by you (Martin), mentioning a composer who wrote a Requiem in 40 languages (or was it 14?), and an opera Gogol, - article needs improvement, - keyword fearless[47]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"How many inkblots can you see in this frog?"Atlashörnchen aka "The Little Spanish Nibbler"Alas, Arbcom appears not to be quorate againHorde of unruly crazed socks rushing to vote at RfA?
Answering "yes" or "no" to the following questions, please be as truthful as possible:
"I sometimes make surreptitious wikipedia edits while I'm in the bath."
Thanks your your co-operation. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, Brain bot (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, all no. I dream of the day our founder takes to heart what I told him last year. (Remembered top of my talk. If changed, look on my user page for "flower", followed by "moral ambitiousness".) No more toxic personalities, no more banning, - imagine! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) No. 2) No. 3) No. 4) No. 5) No.
1) Not quite. Some, but not all. 2) No. 3) No. 4) No. 5) Yes.
Note: we are talking about wikipedia editors here, so they can't be expected to follow a simple set of clear instructions. Thanks, Brain bot (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm truly amazed that a big game hunter should have his own dental practice. Maybe he gets a lot of trouble with his teeth? Or perhaps hunting is his "mane job" and he's just "filling in" for the dentist? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mark Marathon (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your {{cn}} twice in the space of 8 days. I'm not sure that constitutes "edit warring". You opened a thread to discuss this at the Talk Page just five hours ago, threatening that I will be "reported for edit warring". And all because I suggest that the description of the synopsis of the song is supported by a common version of the lyrics already linked at the bottom of the article. I don't think you're being very reasonable. So your wish that I "have a nice day" rings rather hollow. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I almost admitted that you were my "mate", Gareth. But I don't think we are allowed to have those here. Maybe you can on Twitter? Removing "cn" tags twice has never been quite as painful in my 8 years here. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC) ... but only 8 years - that's hardly "a marathon", is it? Seems I don't have a leg to stand on.[reply]
Bore da. You might be interested in this DYK. First ever road I drove on without L plates the day after passing my test; I can recall my mum in the passenger seat scared that I was going to drive off the edge. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame no source covers it, but the persistence of the ice cream van is pretty legendary, I've been up that way in mid January and seen it. As all my relatives who lived in the Rhondda have either died or moved away, I haven't been there in ages but do take a nostalgic trip up there when I can. The sheep randomly roaming about the van is absolutely true! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well you know what they say, "in for a penny, in for £100,000"...."At a hotly contested auction the owner of Leakers Bakery snapped up the old public toilets in the East Street car park from under the noses of developers." But not sure "noses" is quite the right word there. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is no: Anyone caught wearing a watch will be executed with a 14.5mm ZPU-4 anti-aircraft gun, and the offending timepiece will be donated to the personal collection of Kim Jong-un. Sca (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you just love (some) Americans - keen to claim Oliver Sacks as 'one of theirs', but equally happy to deny that their own President is... :) JezGrove (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, just your friendly, neighborhood IP popping by!. I understand my own comments may of caused a stir (I am, well was, that IP in the thread - who has now withdrawn)...or perhaps even some "offence". Seriously, if my cousin ever rose above the ranks of a lowly graduate geologist working for BHP (well actually lowly sounds kinda insulting to describe someone who is Ba, Ma and PhD) and become notable enough to have his own wikipedia article - then I dare say there would be arguments over his nationality. Assuming of course his hypothetical rise to fame took place in another country - let us say the US...because that's where he's lived for the past 15 years. Perhaps there would even be an argument over his "Englishness"?! As he was born in Devon but raised in Cornwall. "XXXX is an English-born Cornish-American geologist". My god, what a laugh. Thankfully he is above such nonsense, but I thought it was fun anyhow. And the Obama stuff - That nonsense about his nationality is still as funny as it ever was - especially considering how many still like to doubt it. --109.149.122.179 (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something tells me you folks are Welsh. Well, riddle me this - I was on the North Cornish Coast this Sunday gone, climbing the dramatic heights of Dintagel, when I spotted on the horizon an island shimmering in the distance. Could this of been a Welsh Island? It seemed pretty far off the coast, but I have some doubts as my position was rather far west. Anyhow, I'm honored to be considered a genuine IP editor - is it a fad to be one? "no account, but I'm alright!". Ha. FYI, to make it clear I am a neutral, I made an edit to a little-known South Korean "born" girl group...--109.149.122.179 (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the 'Thanks' you sent - the whole Sacks-nationality thing certainly requires a sense of humour at times... (I seem to recall there was a very similar spat about the exact proportion of Liam Neeson's Irish/British/American-ness though oddly the US contingent lost interest after his remarks on gun control led to the arms industry threatening not to lend him any more of their toys for his next Taken sequel!) JezGrove (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes - hadn't scrolled down far enough to see 'The Man of Steel (Renationalisation)'! Guess there are some in Labour that would be happy for the Yanks to claim him... (Well, it worked for Ed and his big brother! Though Andy Burnham would have been a better fit for the outfit David left to work for in New York). JezGrove (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help in herding over there. Just spotted my unintended juxtaposition of 'sheep' and 'herding' in my contributions to this page – but as the woolly creatures heading for the Welsh uplands say to the hill-farmers, "please don’t take a fence". (God, that’s dire even by my standards.) JezGrove (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is it with today? Nothing but vandal reverts all day.... The sooner we get them all back in class, heads down and working hard to pass their exams, the better. I blame the parents. Mr. Hankey = Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hello. Sorry we seem to have been tripping over each other editing the page. I noticed you inserted an inflation adjusted valuation for the manor supposedly converting the then valuation of £11 to £10,000 now. I would suggest that this number is wrong! I am extraordinarily skeptical that the equivalent of what is now the annual wage for a poorly paid person would have been enough to buy this manor at that time.
Incidentally, the figure of £11 is that quoted by wessex archaeology in their writeup and is no doubt what the original document said. I was concerned, however, whether this was the sale value, or might possibly be an annual income valuation. Sandpiper (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sandpiper thanks for your message. Apologies for the edit conflicts. Yes, that value looked a bit low to me as well, so I've taken it out. Thanks for adding all that new material. I'm not sure that SM 27145 is really needed in the lede section. Maybe we could work it in later on, as the lede is meant to be a summary of the whole article? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning Martin and Sandpiper, I have just edited the Info' box to reflect its address. Although Chenies is in Buckinghamshire, Chenies village is in the WD3 postcode area, which is centered on Rickmansworth. Therefore its postal address is Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| —08:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)08:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dont have a problem about moving the reference number. There is more material to add yet and obviously the lead summarises the article contents, so rather has to be written last. I have changed it a bit because the information I added has rather contradicted what it used to say, about the current manner being built by the Cheyne family, whereas it is looking to be 'new' tudor work. From what I have read, this is not absolutley certain, but that would seem to be where the wessex archaeology/time team detective work has led. There is more to write up about phases of construction of the demolished north block, but it looks like this was the old house. I expect there will be a home for the ref number somewhere later, and it might have been nice if there was something more which might have been said in the lead about the earliest part of the house. Unfortunately it looks like all that is left is a basement.Sandpiper (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandpiper. I'm sure your diligent research will be of great benefit to the article. Martinevans123 (talk)
Hi Martin, a couple of sections I added to the page Brian Anderson (boxer) have been blanked twice this morning by editor Banderson1961 – this is the only page this user has edited, and the account wasn’t used before today. I know your Wikipedia experience is much greater than mine – would you mind taking a look at the page when you get the chance to see what you think? Very many thanks! JezGrove (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you are involved please find below a copy of the message I have sent to JezGrove:
Hi JezGrove - I'm sorry for the unauthorized editing yesterday. I really have little idea how to use this site. However the additional information you have added to Brian Anderson (boxer) is biased and without context. I don't know if it is your intention to be misleading but I just wanted to add some balance to the biography because I'm hoping that is the point of Wikipedia. I don't know if I have breached some convention as I am the subject of the page but if you are interested in writing a factual biography I would be more than happy to speak with you!Banderson1961 (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi again, Martin - thanks for your comment on the BA (boxer) talk page. I'm REALLY confused - am I dealing with two separate people both claiming to be BA now? Is there a way of checking? JezGrove (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to ask Mr Anderson if he's created a second account by mistake, or out of newbie ignorance. He's said a number of times that he has "no idea how Wikipedia works", so I'm guessing it's an oversight on his part. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but one of them has been responding to my posts on my talk page (you're very welcome to take a look, though it's a social desert over there) JezGrove (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If, after B(G)A’s eventual response, I’m left feeling a little mistreated is there anywhere I can take the issue? (I should have restricted my edits to saying that in the bad old days everything in prison was ‘orrible but that now it’s all ‘cushty’ – sadly, I just couldn’t find a reliable source!)
For once I’m totally serious (ouch!) – I really don’t want to be on the receiving end of accusations of bias when I’ve been polite and open to suggested revisions. (At least in my eyes - I appreciate that these things are subjective, but then that cuts both ways). I’m not going to be online much tomorrow (some new work has just come in, and I need to do the week’s shopping in the morning before I make a start on it –ah! the joys of ‘working from home’) but if B(G)A accuses me of bias again is there anywhere I can go to defend my (albeit unremarkable) reputation? JezGrove (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could go to AN/I. But that would be a bit like a snowball expecting to get a fair hearing somewhere on the West Coast. It's really just a content dispute. Believe me, it's rather obvious that you have nothing to answer in the bias department. BGA appears to be just a new editor who is keen to expunge anything from the article about himself that looks a little negative. User:Michig is the editor who created the article. I wonder what he has to say. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as I was in danger of forgetting it, good faith is always required - even when in short supply. I've now looked at User:Michig’s (very numerous) useful contributions and realised how totally unfair my last comment was – no disrespect was intended, and my apologies if any was taken. JezGrove (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear both I dont understand much of what is written here between you both it appears to be in some sort of code! Yes I am a new editor but Im not sure what the relevance is!.. Just for the record I have not requested that anything be removed from the page. I attempted to delete it originally only because I didn't know what else I could do. My requests have only ever been that more content should be added to provide more balance. I know I can't win this argument you have all the power. I find it interesting that someone who writes anonymously about others (JezGrove) is so easily offended. I wish you could experience, just for a day, what it feels like for me.
My best wishes to you both JezGrove and Martinevans123
Thanks for your message, Brian. Apologies, you're not the only one who has trouble understanding my rather convoluted Talk Page. It tends to be a small oasis on nonsense amidst the stark deserts of verifiable facts. I'm sure most of us never have to worry about article content reflecting poorly on us personally. And I see at the Talk Page that the editor who originally created the article, User:Michig, shares some of your concerns about balance. In my experience, Private Eye is happy to dig up whatever dirt it can on someone just to fill its columns. That doesn't mean it's not all true, but it may not all be appropriate for inclusion in a wikipedia article. Prisons only tend to get in the news when there is a problem. But I can assure that any "power" that JezGrove or I may seem to have here derives wholly from the application of wikipedia policies. There is no reason why you can't also soon become familiar with these and feel equally empowered. You might even want to edit other articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Martnevans123 - I'm Grateful for your time and advice
Kind Regards
Thanks Martin. I see that Liz II has become the Queen with the longest reign, but it could be a while before she becomes the Queen with the longest snow! Sincere apologies to you and CS Lewis (and Liz herself, of course!) for that royally dire attempt at humour JezGrove (talk)
I noticed the link you added to Dunnockshaw and Clowbridge, and while you have linked to the correct Whalley, that article doesn't mention the ancient parish so I'm going to revert. Quite a long time ago I started this User:Trappedinburnley/Whalley (ancient parish), but as I didn't know much about it I got a bit stuck. Since then (time permitting), I've been working through the relevant articles adding info on the related townships, with a view to eventually completing the new article. Any contributions you could make would be welcome.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
PS Are you aware of this? Wikipedia:GLAM/Clitheroe Castle Museum[reply]
Hi Trapped. Thanks so much for your friendly note. I'm must admit that I left that edit summary question mark just for you. I can see you've been very busy in your sandbox there and it looks very promising. I'll try and have a look. Thanks also for the castle link. I've been to Clitheroe a few times, but never to the castle. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a gem. Long before my time in fact, can only just remember seeing clips of him on TV. I'm pretty sure my father thought him a bumbling idiot, but I recall that my grandparents thought him "quite a card". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article you mentioned is about the general style of the folk idiom called the Hoedown. Many composers have drawn on this basic fiddle-based dance music for inspiration. One that comes to mind is Don Gillis, who I studied with in the 1970s.
Having lived with both the Nelson and the Copland for more that fifty years I can assure you that they are completely different pieces of music.JaneOlds (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin! I know in his early recordings Mr Costello / MacManus had a rather mumbled vocal delivery, but nevertheless I’m sure he expressed his feelings very clearly in his excellent song (I Don’t Want to Go To) Caersws! Having had a look at the page’s troubled editing history, I humbly suggest that if the locals REALLY want to stake their village’s claim to fame they’d be better doing so with: "It has one of the biggest clusters of IP editors of Wikipedia in Wales, or indeed the world"… (actually, maybe "one of the densest clusters" would be a more accurate description, on second thoughts! JezGrove (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fantastic - I didn't spot that one in my battered out-of-date Rough Guide to Wales! Oops, forgotten my wallet (again!) - you couldn't get them in, could you? JezGrove (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A editor has added an info-box which I have deleted as pointless (basically duplication of stuff in the lead). I am a fan of useful info-boxes (cricketers, politicians etc) but I think those that just duplicate the lead make Wikipedia look rather amateurish, and are unnecessary clutter. But if you disagree, I shall not object if you restore the IB. Pray ponder. Tim riley talk12:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahahahaha. Well it beats having ip editors (who have been here for less than two years) nailed to the school walls, I guess. Our mysterious friend not-from Worcester is a bit of a Crowded House fan, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We invent all these sports - you can't expect us to play them well, too! (Dragon's protruding tongue duly noted - but doubtless no more than we deserve.) JezGrove (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So THAT'S the secret - centuries of sneaky practice before we even stole the game from you, you scoundrels! I've often enjoyed a pint or two (I know, I know... but then I'm not a Rugby fan) of that particular brewery's wares but inevitably woken up the next morning "feeling (insert chicken-based cliché here!)" Anyway, congratulations on your victory - and good luck for the rest of the tournament. JezGrove (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the England side will wake up 'over the moon' with Samuel L Jackson's words of wisdom ringing in their ears. (And my apologies, that should have been 'clichéd chicken-based homophone' above, shouldn't it - my standards are slipping, which is worrying considering how low they started out...) JezGrove (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do. (Whilst trying to forget about passing under sleep's dark and silent gate.) I saw Clyde perform For a Dancer as a tribute to James Honeyman-Scott (who had died the day before) at a very wet Glastonbury in '82 - from one pretender to another, I guess. The weekend tickets cost a shocking £8 - they were gouging us even back then! BTW, my own rendition of Here Come Those Tears Again usually lives up to the name (but not in a good way, unfortunately) JezGrove (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you intend to restore Caipinheger? Normally if something goes unsourced, with source requested, for four years, it would be removed. WP:V says "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." This has been challenged, and there is no inline citation that directly supports the material. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a WP:RS, it should be restored. Who knows if that's four years of searching, or three years and 364 days of ignoring the tag? I guess you'll have formed a list of possible web candidates that fail WP:RS? Or have you just been thumbing through printed Portuguese cocktail recipe books? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I intended to restore it with a source. (I also mistook the tense of your question to be conditional future, instead of past). I've now added two sources, although I have to admit they don't look very impressive. Do you have an interest in Caipirinha, or are you just deleting claims that have been tagged for a long time? I don't see that these claims are particularly contentious or problematic, not that policy makes any distinction? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well done against the FeeGees – I wonder how we’ll do against the Australians? (Not a comment on the selection criteria for ‘British’ sportsmen and women, just a feeble stretch on my part – though they did first become notable Down Under, so the Aussies can have them if the Yanks don’t claim them first!) I guess we’ll just have to wait and see whether (falsetto mandatory) it’s a tragedy or whether we can scrape through to the next round. JezGrove (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that Owen "Vinnie" Farrell, who had played so well, got carried away with Old Git. At least one of the replays showed that the ball was actually nearby (even if it was in mid-air) when that shoulder came in. And Australia were not without a few of their own "wild tackles". I guess that's why we have the TMO. Even if the yellow card wasn't cast-iron, the penalty certainly was. And his departure did not really affect the outcome, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - though 'World Series' is a bit of a misnomer. Strange how our cousins across the Atlantic specialize in games only they play competitively. (Totally unfair of me - I believe they play baseball in Japan, too...) JezGrove (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a red link when I reverted. I didn't quite see why [[non serviam|non serviam]] was an improvement on [[non serviam]]. I must have assumed that the re-direct was already in place - because that's how it looked when I clicked on it. Very sorry if I have put you to any trouble. It's great that even Latin phrases, that would not normally be given an initial capital letter, have to have articles that use one, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's odd, non-serviam (with a hyphen) was a redlink when I looked, so the IP's pipe [[non serviam|non-serviam]] seemed an improvement. Oh well. It's all working now and the redirect is usable elsewhere. All those numerous places where we use that Latin expression, I mean. Best, --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I forgot. There was a hyphen. Which I evidently didn't even see. And we can't ever check if it was red, before you created the re-direct, can we, as now the re-direct exists, and means the red link is never there, when we look at past versions. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, I think, Gerda. As we already have three articles for books called Non serviam, I think lower case might indeed be preferable. Upper case letters can be so common ,I find. Did Lucifer ever use it with a capital letter, I wonder? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit at Auden I have had to undo since you are attributing Harold Bloom's words to me. Though flattering, this is not any credit that I can take, so I need to do a friendly undo to restore proper attribution to Bloom. If you have any questions about the edit please bring them up here and I'll try to get make. Cheers. MusicAngels (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no need to revert the links I added, is there? I've restored the quote, although it's still very unclear to me who's quoting whom, and why. Poems, like songs, are generally given in quotes, not in italics, unless published as books in their own right. A better place for discussion might be at the article Talk Page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are again attributing the Bloom material to me which I have quoted correctly and which you are attributing as my words. Please return the quotes where I put them to properly attribute what Bloom has written. Regarding your comment about poems in Italic that is true in general, but that is not how Bloom wrote it in his quote, and the Bloom version is how he wanted it written.
Occassionally, a poem's name will also appear as the name of a book of poems, and in those cases when the book of poems is being referred to, then the Italic version is to be preferred. Please return the quote to the way Bloom wrote since that was and is his preference. Your added link are a benefit and you can certainly return them, I did the undo because your edit was not attributing Bloom's words to Bloom. Please return the quote marks, etc, as I requested, thanks. MusicAngels (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you keeping an eye on the Britten article. (It does attract the vandals and loonies doesn't it!) I wonder if your interest in 20th British music might extend to looking it at the peer review of Sir Arnold's article, which I'm hoping to take to FAC in due course. Quite understand if he doesn't appeal, naturally. Tim riley talk20:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I have skimmed through that article, and I must say it's a privilege to even be asked to review it, So thank you very much. Alas, am a bit tied for time at the moment with stuff in the "real world" (yes, I think it still exists), so any review I offer will probably be for very tiny spelling mistakes and missing links (if there are even any at all, of course)! I know so little about Bax, that reading it will be a complete education. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC) peer review? you're more likely to get an end of-the-pier revue from me.[reply]
What a pleasing message to read! You are very kind. Perfectly understand that RL has a way of muscling in from time to time, naturally. Best, Tim riley talk08:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For exemplary service at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. :) You noticed the Harold Bloom book with the two separate years, the one was for the hardback version and the other was for the paperback version. MusicAngels (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see Cecil the lion has raised his head again - quite an achievement under the circumstances! (My own - rather smaller - rescue cat has no teeth and probably now has a fear of dentists, and I'm with him on that one!) 21:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC) JezGrove (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there some dental version of the Hippocratic oath that means they have to tell the whole truth? Actually, on second thoughts, let's not start them thinking about hippos now that the lions are out-of-bounds... JezGrove (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Texas Lottery? You should be seriously considering your long-term investments in conjunction with an independent financial advisor or you'll be left with just 25p! JezGrove (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to have intrigued you! Well, it might be that I'm just playing with words, but I know a lot of wiki people so it can always happen that some edit of mine be paid back in smiles, hugs, kisses or even hospitality. I don't keep track of those, while I have a couple separate accounts for actual wiki jobs, see Wikipedia:GLAM/BEIC and User:Federico Leva (WMIT). Nemo15:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's so long since I read that book, I can only remember one of the cities. I think it was some terribly bleak place. But this looks like the sort of funereal landscape that would probably suit Jerry Cruncher. Sage is not a million miles away from Wolfgang Paalen, is she? And like him she ended up committing suicide. But if I had to describe the painting, I'd probably say something like ... "Like other works by American Surrealist Kay Sage, "I Saw Three Cities" is at once realistic and mysterious. Presiding over the haunting, abandoned landscape seen here is a guardian whose fluid drapery and sinuous curves recall those of the ancient Greek statue Nike of Samothrace. Sage’s sentinel lacks the Nike’s effervescence, however. Its drapery is animated, but its core remains rigid and static. This uncanny presence — neither dead nor alive, neither man nor woman — reflects the Surrealists’ fascination with robots and other forms of mechanization. Sage, whose husband was the French Surrealist Yves Tanguy, helped several French artists reach the United States after the outbreak of World War II." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HM; from Wolfgang Paalen, that's new for me ... interesting guy. Though, surrealism doesn't seems to be to healthy, now, for artists. Any thoughts on an article? You look like found some stuff on it. Hafspajen (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John Wayne gacy: he was executed. He death wasn't homicide unless you are trying to say bullshit like the DEATH penalty is legal murder which it isn't. I suggest elimating bias and just say facts. We are wikipedia we don't take sides we report facts
"Homicide" means: "The killing of one person by another, whether premeditated or unintentional; killing another person." That's a fact. The death penalty is legal, in some places. It doesn't count as "murder", to most people. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I say! That was quick: about thirty nanoseconds after I deposited my re-write in main space there you were, tweaking to excellent effect. You can't possibly wriggle out of clocking in at the peer review now, and giving my text a serious once-over. Ever thine, Tim - Tim riley talk18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mention The Poisoned Kiss: it is my secret sorrow in re the Vaughan Williams article. When the Hickox recording came out, one critic wrote that it was like Gilbert and Sullivan – if Gilbert had written the music and Sullivan the words, but I have tried and tried, unsuccessfully to track down the quote for this article. Tim riley talk18:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source given by Rodw does not support the claim that Alice attended Westbury C-of-E Primary (in fact it doesn't identify her primary school at all) so it doesn't support the information given in the article. Friends Reunited is therefore a better source for that fact.
Other editors have suggested that Friends Reunited is a problematic source. While not ideal, I contend that it is acceptable given that the information is not contentious. See the Alice Roberts Talk page for further discussion. Friends Reunited requires a login, not a subscription. A better source (perhaps you can find one) would be open access, not self-published, and would (unlike the edit I reverted) actually contain the information it purports to. Kind regards 2.221.46.231 (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So how many primary schools are there actually in Westbury-on-Trym? I would have thought the phrase "went to school in Westbury-on-Trym" from the Bristol Postdoes indeed support, if not entirely, a claim that Roberts attended Westbury C-of-E Primary. Yes Friends Reunited is indeed a problematic source and, for those who do not wish to "subscribe", is quite useless. One can't even judge the context in which the information is given? I actually opened that discussion thread in November last year (when I even defended the use of Friends Reunited as a source). Perhaps you'd care to add something there? It's hard to tell if you have contributed there before or not. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many primary schools are in Westbury-on-Trym, but Alice's secondary school is located there. That means that a statement that she attended school in Westbury doesn't necessarily imply that her primary school was also in Westbury. The Friends Reunited reference is unambiguous.
A reference to a paper textbook (if unavailable online) is only useful to somebody who owns the book, but such references are acceptable to Wikipedia, as are sites behind subscription paywalls. Friends Reunited is more accessible than either of those categories.
Thank you again for opening the discussion thread on Talk:Alice_Roberts - I didn't recognize your user name initially. I have contributed to the discussion there previously, and may do so again.
I've reverted your edit on the basis that a poor reference - even one requiring a login - is better than none.
I think it might be better if WP:SPS didn't also apply. One can claim whatever one likes on FR and, as far as I know, there is no editorial checking whatsoever. That said, I don't know why Alice herself would want to make an erroneous claim about a primary school like that. I hope you decide to create a user account, that would certainly make continuous collaboration easier. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thanks for clarifying the source access. Re: WP:SPS regarding "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" it seems that all five criteria are met in this instance.
I may well create a user account at some point, but it's just so hard to find a good name that's not already taken!
I met Patrick Moore at a book signing and have got a signed copy of one of his books. Out of all of the people that I have written about on Wikipedia, he is the only one that I have actually met. Today's strange but true fact.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)20:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How amazing! Shame you didn't have a camera handy (although that can be so embarrassing). Oh, I could name names you know, old boy.... (but then I'd have to return all those lovely editing fees). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering all of the biographical articles that I have edited, it is remarkable that Patrick Moore is the only one that I have met. Then again, he did a lot of book signings. In the past, I have been accused of being pro or anti various people that I have never met.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)20:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! As if that would stop you (or me) being a pro or an anti! But, as you are begging me to tell you.... I have the same sort of signed books from this landlord and this explorer. I've also met a lot of psychos like this one, this one, this one and many more! But I've actually shaken this guy's magnificent hand and the thrill of that moment has certainly not gone. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC) ... oh and I once served Frank Bough a whisky and water. A man with a very loud voice, incidentally. oh, and I used to drink in the same pub as this guy and this guy, if that counts as "meeting".... [reply]
It could be added to the infobox, but I'm not sure how necessary this is for an average article. Biographical articles don't generally have the person's signature, although articles about US Presidents regard them as a must-have.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I claim no knowledge of the English judicial system, but are you absolutely certain English High Court judges are called "Judge Mr/Mrs Justice"? From what I can tell, the court document on for Sweeney's remarks on Rolf Harris and on High Court judge (England and Wales), they just use "Mr/Mrs Justice", and don't have an extra "Judge" in front. Cannolis (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I've always seen it, at least on first usage. If it's already clear, by means of context or explanation, that he was the judge, maybe it could be omitted. That source looks pretty clear and official. I won't revert you again, but it might be better to raise the question at the article Talk Page? Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be a combination of the American title with the English one. This is the first mention of Sweeney in the article so I completely agree with you that it's helpful to clarify that he was the judge. Would you be okay with leaving it there but de-capitalizing judge so as to make it not sound like part of his title? Happy to go to the talk page of course, but this doesn't seem so controversial that two people can't just hash it out easily. Cannolis (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! I guess I can claim a tiny bit now after reading the the wiki article on English High Court judges. That show looks amazing, and now I will imagine all English judges to be this fantastic. Cannolis (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could be a er... "cunning stunt" to attract publicity. (Though they may need to prepare for a 'pubic lice' outbreak if they're still using Google Translate...) JezGrove (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Hey, I could have sworn I ordered a cheeseburger... "Come now, girls and boys - "EEng, Softlavender and Martinevans123 enjoying some impromptu Halloween apple bobbing"
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Boole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I recently ordered, and am starting to receive, box sets (very cheap, c. US$10 each) of the music of Pomus, Shuman. Mann, Weil, Goffin, King (I already have a good Lieber, Stoller collection) - each is 3 CD, about 25 songs per, but there are no notes. So I am going through them all writing my own notes. Every now and then I get diverted into wikipedia to make some edits. Like now. so . . . ... welcome to my life. Carptrash (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Chris Peter. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Chris Peter
Hi Martin, a bit of a strange one... I’ve rather haphazardly come across a page but happen to know its subject socially. (The circles I move in…!) We’re absolutely by no means 'besties' but she's a close friend-of-a-friend I'm still occasionally in touch with (and have known since infant school! - I'll be posting a birthday card later this week...) and I’d feel uncomfortable tagging the article myself (single reference, and perhaps on the promotional side of encyclopedic) but maybe you’d be able to give it the benefit of your much vaster experience? Or maybe I should just channel my inner child and let it go?! JezGrove (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarrely, I happen to live in Royston Vasey - we even have a (very recently-opened) shop that says it's 'a local shop for local people', though I'm not sure how well they thought that marketing slogan through...! (And I knew the cartoonist Royston, who occasionally appears in Private Eye, at our mutual unprestigious university - in fact he's married to an ex-girlfriend of mine, so I guess it's official - I'm the least famous person I know!) JezGrove (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In between kicking lumps out of each other chez Sibelius, I have RVW at FAC, and any comments you might care to make would be welcome there. Also, having had productive dealings recently on Peggy Mount I wonder if I can interest you in Sybil Thorndike, who is my next candidate for an overhaul with FAC in mind? Pray ponder. Quite understand if you aren't interested, natch. Tim riley talk21:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I leave anything cube-shaped to your discretion, but a waspish view of any article at FAC is ideal. One wants the most rigorous scrutiny. But there is no hurry, and if you like to look in a day or so hence that will be excellent. Tim riley talk21:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. if you have any ideas of how you'd like to be insulted, at this Talk Page or any other, please email usual PO box - "I carry a xylophone and I'm not afraid to use it".
Precious again, your comment "it's a challenge to reach an intelligent compromise for the benefit of the reader"!
Haha, what a challenge. I think we both know that, of all the meaningless statistics at Wikipedia, that one is one of the most meaningless! (.. won't stop me trying, of course). Allen Toussaint a really nice guy. Notice to Appear with John Mayall one of my favourite albums. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[57][reply]
Hi P-123. Sincere apologies, it was a random error, so please ignore. I often get a late jump in my watchlist/ edit history at the moment I make a mouse insert. I put this down to slow rendering on my computer. Or maybe it's caused by a slow update from the database, I'm really not sure. Some of my unintended reverts are much more embarrassing - a partial bi-product of having a watchlist in dire need of pruning! So again, sorry about that. :) "M-123" (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remember doing work with you before here and found you quite helpful.
What are your thoughts of the Skyfall page saying the gross is 1,100 million instead of 1 billion?
Four editors claim for it that it was to avoid any confusion from people who use the old billion (million million) in the UK, instead 1,000 million like the US, which the UK adapted 40ish years ago?
There has been a little fight for a while to get it moved back to a billion, just like loads and loads of other pages have it. But currently at a mild standstill due to four editors on one side, and four on another.
I am for the change back to a billion in gross, would you be interested in helping to be a fifth? I for one, was taught 1,000 million to be a billion, and not a million million, which most of UK would have been also due to billion being adopted as 1,000 million 40 years ago.
Would be greatly helpful to move discussion from more than a 'talk' but to an actual finalised consensus which can be used, and let that be the end of it.
1,000 million and 40 years ago is a very long time, isn't it. So I'd certainly go with that. But I'm all for standardisation, so maybe a global conversion to Indonesian rupiah would be the way to go - a much more impressive 15,099,221,156,740 IDR?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care whether the peaches were to Sir Henry's liking or not, as it's far more critical to know whether the consignment of cucumbers was to Lady Henrietta's satisfaction. This message will not self-destruct without assistance from the recipient. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After a rummage in the archive, I found this photograph of Ghettopoly which I took at an open air market stall in 2005. It points out that the game was banned on eBay as it was considered to be racially offensive. It was £10 which I thought was a lot at the time, but today I wish I'd bought it, as mint condition examples are worth a lot of money. Don't expect to see it on Antiques Roadshow though.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)09:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, how wonderful. "He said ______* was “run by a system, by robots, with no brain who probably just vet the content without looking into anything properly”, adding: ”It's moronic." (...* please fill in encyclopedia name of your choice.) Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a more detailed look at the Dad's Army board game from 1974. The triangular flags are clearly based on the opening sequence of the show. Even the ultra-politically correct BBC has not banned the opening sequence of Dad's Army and still shows it in its original form. The only Dad's Army episode to be banned (sort of) was Absent Friends from 1970, which sat on the shelf until 2012 because it featured a member of the IRA as a character. It Ain't Half Hot Mum has been less lucky, as the BBC has declined to show it for years, much to Jimmy Perry's annoyance.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Murder in the Red Barn - Please explain why you have removed my edit. Peter Maggs Peter Maggs 15:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Maggs (talk • contribs)
No, but I did not understand it; as a very occasional Wikipedia editor, obviously I have missed something. What do you mean by a secondary source? Peter Maggs 16:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Maggs (talk • contribs)
My edit summary said this: "don't you need a secondary source, especially with a user name like that?" So I had two points. 1. With a new book I think it's usual to use a secondary source, not just the book itself, to establish its notability. 2. As you have the same name as the author I was guessing there might be some kind of conflict of interest, in terms of promoting your own book. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC) p.s. I see you have been editing here for ten years - did you know you should sign your posts using four tildes? Cheers. [reply]
Thanks, useful comments. Actually I always sign my post with four tildas and I always, nevertheless, seem to get the message 'unsigned'. I don't understand what I am doing wrong...Peter Maggs 22:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Maggs (talk • contribs)
I only ever eat Basmatti rice... Here's an idea: clearly you have an interest in the Red Barn murder. Why don't you check out my website www.mirlibooks.com where there are some extracts from my new book; if you think it merits it, link it to the Wikipedia page. I believe my research significantly adds to the knowledge we have on the murder of Maria Martin. Peter Maggs 17:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Maggs (talk • contribs)
Hello again Peter, old chap. Charmed, I'm sure. That all looks very intriguing. I think it would only be fair to open a discussion thread at the Red Barn Murder Talk Page, where any interested editors could discuss the merits of including your new book. If not, they might always consider buying a copy as useful last-minute silk stocking-fillers. I don't know about you, but I could murder a good burger.Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC) p.s. I must say how dapper you look in that blazer - didn't we see you on that recent Essex edition of Antiques Road Trip?? [reply]
I can do whimsy; I was never sure about that jacket though ... an impulse buy in Southwold. --Peter Maggs 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Maggs (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your help on this; much appreciated. Peter Maggs 07:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Maggs (talk • contribs)
Hi Martin, thanks for the thanks. I see you just added the 'however' that I was thinking of including! Another (!) old girlfriend of mine lived next door to Hilary in Chiswick in the '80s when she was a student (there was even a connecting door upstairs, and she used to babysit his kids). Though she didn't get the use of the garden, because it had been amalgamated with Hilary's - we often saw Tony playing football in it with his grandchildren (yup, and smoking his pipe at the same time). JezGrove (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I've gone to bed so I won't reply! As you know, I have been a firm fan of the pipe and still think it should appear in his article! Blimey, these old girlfriends of yours are a force to be reckoned with, aren't they. I thought Hilary's speech was one of the best I've heard in years - word perfect and delivered at exactly the right pace, sincere, thoughtful, candid. A slight echo of his inspired father. I found it quite moving. After hearing that, I honestly think he might be the next Labour Leader. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Eddie Mair played it in full on PM yesterday and it was excellent - Tony would have disagreed with the viewpoint, but been very proud nonetheless. I was with the girlfriend for about five years, and she was Hilary's tenant in the house next door to his own for the last three of them when she was at college in London - I probably stayed there almost every other weekend until she dumped me during her final year. She actually broke up with me in the living room there - almost thirty years on and I can still remember the record that was playing on the stereo! JezGrove (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, it was side 2 of Bat out of Hell - not my choice, though I don’t think that was the reason for the break-up! I think the turntable must have been set to repeat play but it’s possible that neither of us had the emotional energy to turn it off, or even turn the disc over – either way, every twenty minutes or so Meatloaf was singing, "And she kept on telling me, she kept on telling me, SHE KEPT ON TELLING ME…". Haven’t thought about that evening for an extremely long time – and this is the first time it’s occurred to me that maybe it was deliberate. (I catch on v-e-r-y slowly, if so!) JezGrove (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently he harnessed the incredible power of the invisible mind-controlling Jackie to his own evil ends: [62]. Not to be trifled with, obviously. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC) I always found that magazine a fab fun read... But I never realized it could blow your head off![reply]
I said I won't pass individual Christmas greetings, but as the cantata was mentioned on the Main page today, one moar dose of laughter for you - details on my talk -and thanks for your lovely composition!
Martinevens123, I accidentally reverted one of your edits to Tyson Fury. Sorry about that! I restored the edits back to page (i am editing wp on a really crummy android tablet and I hit the revert button for you instead of the vandal above you in the recent changes feed). BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, I'm just after a bit of advice. I've added my suspicions about copyright violation (looks like it's been there for a while...) to an article's talk page - is there anything else I should do?! Thanks in advance - BTW I see England are in the same group as you in the Euro 2016 football finals - will we never learn...? JezGrove (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The gene subject is posion by chickenfears, but have fun, it is a lie your/media will perhaps enjoy.
what is to dificult for you. To understand.
The gene subject is posion by chickenfears < "the shalow inheritance" search for liberman etc, scientific wishful crocery
but have fun - they will have fun - we are serious.
the stupid will have fun based on lie
your/media will perhaps enjoy. <those who propagate the lie will maybe ejoy it.
To understand more you newed to know more about each part of the sentence. Start form paleontropolgy ... if you like realy understand, ask., If not do not expect we will lower to your understanding. most coherent is laser. if you look at it you will be blind. 70.214.34.97 (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we lure you, I wonder, to comment on the development of William Sterndale Bennett and Albert Ketèlbey, both of which are up for peer review? I am just carrying the bags for both reviews, with others taking the lead, but I hope I can do a bit of judicious whipping-in. Not in the least compulsory, natch. Tim riley talk16:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Martinevans123 as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk04:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pick and choose according to taste: Have a Wassailing Winter Solstice (Gwasaela Heuldro'r Gaeaf), Merry Christmas (Nadolig Llawen), Grey Mare (Mari Lwyd) walkabout, or Happy New Year (Blwyddyn Newydd Dda).
"In 2009, a crowd wearing traditional costume, met at Stonehenge on December 21st morning to mark the rising of the sun on the shortest day of the year. But unfortunately their calculations were slightly out meaning they had in fact arrived 24 hours prematurely." Martinevans123 (talk) p.s. a seasonal poultice is fine by me, thanks.
Hi, you have added a link for lactose intolerance to the early life section on Gavin Esler. Had you found a source that named his illness, or had you inferred this? The references that I had seen didn't put a name to the condition, hence the vague wording that I had used. (For example a condition such as pyloric stenosis would commonly present at such an age and could lead to surgery). Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My inference and I expected a revert. The source is a paper one and I have never read it. I didn't see any direct mention of milk at pyloric stenosis, but I had assumed that lactose intolerance was a generic term. I will self-revert if we can't find an online source. But not sure about "thought he might die". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like I omitted to include the url to that Guardian reference, I agree that it should be added. I liked your change to the wording that described the episode in terms of his parents' fears, I thought that it fitted in the article a bit better than the way I had put things. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added the url. For some reason I had assumed no url meant no web source, and that a medical link was better than what appeared to be somewhat lazy reporting. But it was Esler's own account and it's not explained. So I have now reverted. I've not been able to find any better source on-line. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martinevans123, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Mjroots (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Mjroots (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Gained the trust of the community"?? Ffs! how much did that cost you?? What a shame. I always looked forward to those "article has been auto-patrolled" messages, as it proved at least one person had read the article! (only joking). Thanks for telling me. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC) p.s. didn't you ask other more senior editors if I can be "trusted"?? [reply]
As Henry Crun once said "Thank you for your support, I shall wear it always."
It is minimal on purpose, - you can reach any movement from anywhere without having to deal with German spelling. Tomorrow --- will be too late, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5 times expanded (within last seven days) is quite a lot, isn't it. Is that a strict criterion? I can see that you've some some excellent work improving that article. And it would be a shame if it missed out on DYK just because that technicality. But I don't know how to get round it?!Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
15K worth of and", "if", "but" and commas might be pushing it? Fortunately the relevant criterion is "Promoted to good article status" so size is irrelevant. And I'm glad to see that Montanabw has now reviewed and found it to be fine.Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(GA status is the criterion, easy. - Still needs an admin with a soul, who dares to push it into a full set...) Thank you for your support, also musical Welch wishes, returned with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now on the Main page, - Casliber had the soul! (The alleged owner of all horse articles couldn't promote as she had reviewed.) Click on bell for the soft sound of peace (and jest) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You realized that I have a soul! OMG! Don't let THAT get out, it will totally destroy my street cred as a "Serial defender of assholes, serial holder of grudges, serial accuser of socks, serial owner of horsey articles, and serial denier of Wikipedia's chronic issues with retaining sane, normal, humans as editors" and "a thin skinned dictator who OWNs all horse articles." LOL! Montanabw(talk)19:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This barnstar is awarded to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. Hafspajen (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
_-_Meleager_and_Atalanta_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
.jpg)
yourself. Hafspajen (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
_-_Dulle_Griet_(Mad_Meg)_-_WGA22075.jpg)
.jpg)
.... never mind skor. Hafspajen (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC).jpg)
? Hafspajen (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cricket World Cup may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
especially for you, for "agree". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
. You are cold
.jpg)
Like
.jpg)
Marty!!!!
.... we are here 
... 
.jpg)
.jpg)
Sca (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
Sca (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Sca (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
File:Anonim.gif
_in_New_Guinea.jpg)
--Hafspajen (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 17:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
.svg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Glen_White.jpg)
1.JPG)
.jpg)
_(6041403346).jpg)
Hafspajen (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_tight_crop.jpg)
.jpg)
![Latest User:Neelix redirect to "facepalm"? After the 1906 San Francisco earthquake toppled Louis Agassiz's statue from the façade of Stanford's zoology building, Stanford President David Starr Jordan wrote that "Somebody—Dr. Angell, perhaps—remarked that 'Agassiz was great in the abstract but not in the concrete.'" [1]](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Agassiz_statue_Mwc00715.jpg/538px-Agassiz_statue_Mwc00715.jpg)
Latest User:Neelix redirect to "facepalm"?
This week Nigella does... lard.
...and this from an editor who doesn't like cats! Maine Coons, anyone?
I LIKE MY CATS NAKED![Latest User:Neelix redirect to "facepalm"? After the 1906 San Francisco earthquake toppled Louis Agassiz's statue from the façade of Stanford's zoology building, Stanford President David Starr Jordan wrote that "Somebody—Dr. Angell, perhaps—remarked that 'Agassiz was great in the abstract but not in the concrete.'" [1]](/wiki/File:Agassiz_statue_Mwc00715.jpg)
Hello, I'm Chris Peter. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Chris Peter
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(14586469407).jpg)
.jpg)
?Hafspajen (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
... only ... Hope nobody will steal the stuff!
on the road, it's a bit showy... Hafspajen (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
_(14761721316).jpg)
![[46]](http://diarioandaluz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Humor_516583347_humor050.jpg){kind=link}
![[48]](http://i.imgur.com/ShqeNdW.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[54]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nG-MwE0q6Fc/Tg93W2EQyoI/AAAAAAAAAG4/1Ew-GQjG5cM/s1600/Fawlty+Towers+-+Flowery+Twats.jpg){kind=link}
![[55]](http://procartoonists.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/shrews_royston_whales.jpg){kind=link}
. Don't let me down! Mjroots (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC).JPG)
