User talk:Martyn Lovell

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Martyn Lovell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 07:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Martyn Lovell (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Microsoft Windows library files

Hi, thank your for your edit. Since you are interested in that article you might want to weigh in on the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Windows library files. (Which is about the same article, but somebody renamed it in the midst of the AfD process.) Jeh (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I had noticed the deletion debate. Frankly, I think this article is pretty weak and needs a lot of work. We should gradually get Wikipedia to have decent well-structured coverage of the Windows platform/ecosystem components (rather than DLLs). Having said that, I favour keeping the existing article because it has a bunch of useful information that is not elsewhere on WP, and there is much less technical depth in WP about Windows than about other similar technical topics.

Having said all that, I am not really familiar enough with Wikipedia policy to form an argument cogently in terms of wikipedia policy, so I won't add my voice at this time. Martyn Lovell (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you re. the coverage of Windows internals. Stick around, we'll try to make it better. Jeh (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows User

Great work!

I took the liberty of adding Microsoft Windows library files to the See Also section, and did a few other cross-article links. Jeh (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am going to try to work through the worst of these technical topics gradually (probably not more than 1 every week or so). They are not too hard to do because I have a lot of context. Martyn Lovell (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tibidabo Amusemet Park

Hello Martyn,

I've undone your revision, because I think that information is relevant so that people can get that place. And why is it important? Because, to get that place (not only the Tibidabo Amusement Park, but also Tibidabo itself) you have to be very well informed. I mean, it's not an easy place to go. Apart from that, if you consider that information is irrelevant and, besides, you erase it and you think it is better to write it on another page, then you have to do all the changes you think are important. So, don't expect me or others do all the changes you think must to be done. If you don't do that, then please don't erase the information from the page where is published, because people must have the chance to get the information.

Thanks for your attention, RD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnye David (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martyn,

I appreciate your answer. First of all, I understand why you wanted to change that section; that's the same thing I was wondering when I wrote it. But I put it anyway, because both places are the same in some way: I mean, Tibidabo amusement park is in the Tibidabo, as you can check in Google Maps. In fact, the main places to visit are the church and the amusement park. And I know that first hand, because I've worked in that amusement park; I mean, people were interested in them. Regarding to the first link you propose, I don't consider it accurate, because, for example, the "Tramvia blau" is out of service nowadays: https://www.tmb.cat/en/about-tmb/transport-tmb/tramvia-blau-tibidabo. But, I agree with the second link; in fact, this last information is almost the same as the link I published. All in all, I agree in changing the title into "Getting to Tibidabo", but I do prefer to maintain the link and to add your link saying that the "Tramvia blau" is out of service. And, yes, we can add the link from the Tibidabo amusement park in its article.

If you agree, then I can make the changes in the Tibidabo page and you can add the link in the Tibidabo amusement park's article. If you don't agree, then I would like to know your point.

RD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnye David (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's done, Martyn. Thanks for your messages!

Regards,

RD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnye David (talk • contribs) 10:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tibidabo

Hi, I've seen, and I agree with, the change you made to Tibidabo. There seems to be an editor in there whose account has only ever been used to edit that article, and who has been reverting edits (yours and mine) and reinstating that content with external links. I don't want to revert his edits again because I don't want to engage in an edit war or anything like it, but I was wondering what your opinion was. Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]