Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialogue, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
... my own personal permanent fixture tribute... You turn your back for a just a second and some strange Swedish person sneaks in and steals your records!!
Please don't donate generously any more (.... and add whatever you like!!):
Jukeboxland - enter at your own risk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
All deleted, on the advice of User:Fram, in case there is a copyright problem.
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your determination and dedication to help the encyclopedia grow. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
Coming up to 9 years of service and 77,000 edits, Martinevans123 is truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia. On the surface, you may know him for his witty banter and Private Eye-esque visual humour, which I always enjoy, but beneath the surface lies someone who toils away day in, day out, on keeping articles in better shape. He doesn't go for the big awards like GAs and FAs, but he really does make the encyclopedia better without much reward. This nomination was seconded by User:Yash! and User:MelanieN.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Right, that's it! Please accept my resignation! 19:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC) p.s. but many thanks, anyway. That was really unexpected. I am deeply touched. (allegedly)
The award is usually distributed on Sunday. Due to the unexpected amount of touching displayed on this page you have been penalized with an additional day as Editor of the Week. This matter has not been discussed with the other WER clerks (Are there any other WER clerks?) and cannot be rescinded or changed in any way. Buster Seven Talk20:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has come to the attention of the Editor Retentions' Board of Clerks that you may, perhaps, could be, in possession of a much desired and rarely displayed Official Wikipedia T-shirt. The report states that it is black with the The Wikipedia Globe prominently displayed. The report further states that you may have had your name imprinted on the front (potentially an act of vandalism). This would imply that you have already received accolades and "pats on the back" for your efforts. If that is, in fact, the case you may suffer the misfortune of having an additional day added to your week. The issue is under review. You will be advised ASAP. Buster Seven Talk22:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um....the baseball bat is more of a fungo bat, actually. It's used to hit fly balls to the outfielders during batting practice. And the Bavarian jockstrap is, um, obviously for someone that is well-endowed. Plus, its a Fool card. Not a Complete Fool card. I thought you would like it. The tights have a "slimming" quality, don't ya think? Buster Seven Talk07:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This sucks. I dont think even Leonard Cohen felt as sorry in his darkest days. Bleak links pls..Hillybilly also if you are watching. Hit me. I'll start with [3]. Ceoil (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of the more surreal moment in my Wikipedia history was a (real life) argument with Gina Birch over the quality of her Wikipedia bio (which is still godawful, but probably unimprovable as there's no real biography of her to work from). The odd thing about the Raincoats is that their best songs are probably covers by other people, especially Dan Treacy's cover of 'No-one's Little Girl' and Hole's take on 'The Void'—Ana & Gina's affected flatness is striking at first but gets grating quite quickly. ‑ Iridescent14:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lovely, new to me Hillbilly. Almost as pretty miserabilism [5]. I dont know what she does to sustain at the end of each sentence. Ceoil (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
DPL bot, you're such a gentleman gentle-non-sentient-machine-with-apparently-human-qualities. You never swear and you're never uncivil. I just don't know how you do it. You're our hero!! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 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 are 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckstasy (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you finally came out of the IP shadows to scold me? But it seems quite a few other editors think exactly the same as I do and reverted for exactly the same reason. Sorry if I took one of my turns too early. Do you think you'll me raising my edits at WP:AN3 and asking for me to be blocked? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Fest got much better (the article, I mean). Next on YouTube: OREYA, samples in the article. Our conductor watched them work, for example having the different elements of a chord expressed with different vowel colour, fifth bright, none dark, etc. Amazing.Watch their development for several years now. They come by bus in several days. We had several American guests, including a choral conductor. She and all others gave standing ovations! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Gerda. That looks like an easy one. I watched Cantata Memoria: For the children on BBC Four last night. I suppose we can expect Karl Jenkins to at least be accessible. At first I felt disappointed, as it all sounded a bit too accessible - like a lot of nursery rhymes and Missa bits and pieces stitched together. And a bit hurried. But as it progressed I found it quite moving and unlifting. One doesn't often get English, Welsh and Latin all in the same libretto. Having Terfel there was obviously a big plus. There were some wonderful moments. And none of it gloomy. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine: when we sang his Gloria we got applause in the middle of a church concert (!) after the Hebrew Psam 100, both concerts! Yes, uplifting. Now we get ready for the next uplift: Laudato si' by Peter Reulein, lyrics Helmut Schlegel, long discussion my talk, but in German. The only Hebrew in that piece (not counting tons of Halleluja and Amen) is "Shalom elechem", coming with Klezmer music, to illustrate the wedding at Kana, while one Francis sings Tarantella and the other tango. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I really enjoyed the Cantata Memoria. I don't mind a bit of accessibility so long as it doesn't descend into triteness. One of the parts of Cantata is a Bach chorale - not sure which one. BTW the version shown on BBC4 last night was a slightly shortened version.
Here's a list of what is currently available (don't know if these will be much use to Gerda as BBC output on iPlayer can be a bit restricted if you are outside the UK):
Cantata Memoria - the complete work, 63 minutes 15 days left to watch - no download - has to be watched live
concert including Cantata Memoria 83 minutes 15 days left to watch. In Welsh with subtitles - no download - has to be watched live. Concert including Ynysowen Male Voice Choir (formed from the Aberfan Tip Removal Committee) singing with the school children from Aberfan today, Sian Philips, various others and much of the Cantata
Highlights of concert including much, but not all, of Cantata Memoria - 60 minutes 29 days left - downloadable
documentary on Cantata Memoria (in Welsh with English subtitles) - 24 minutes 14 days left - no download - has to be watched live
You're welcome, and feel free to teak tweak away, or wood would you be meaning something else? I'll put a list of the currently available documentaries, along with the Cantata programmes, on to the Aberfan Disaster talk page. I don't have the technology to record from iPlayer to something more permanent, so I think I'll try to do a transcription of the documentaries - there's quite a lot of useful information that could be used in references.
Did you catch Aberfan: The Green Hollow last night? Thought it was very good. The Cantata should definitely have an article of it's own. I'll do it soon-ish unless you want to leap in.
BTW Gerda I've just read that the performance and documentary mentioned above are available on S4C's international site "s4c.cymru/international" if you can't access them on the BBC website. Robevans123 (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you might appreciate this one. The Miami Dolphins' season seemingly goes "tits down" as two of their granny cheerleaders take off their bras.
You have to make such a song and dance don't you!? Ha ha, no worries, stomp on dude. You've obvously learned how to get my sympathy at this sorry excuse for a Talk Page. To use wholly inmapproprate analogy... I was attempting a few home-made tweaks, whereas you've come right in with the big guns. I see that reception to my RD nomination over at WP:ITN/C has been "less than lukewarm". So it doesn't really matter a whole hill of beans at the moment. By the way - your edits are a massive improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mirror
This is a simple mirror of the article before your recent edits; it even credits the original article. The site scrapes random images from the Internet, usually 100% copyright violations, to decorate. This is simple content scraper to serve ads. Please revert. Kuru(talk)12:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wha gwaan, Martin? Me see yuh mek some wutless links di adda day point fi dis-hambiguation pages. Blood fiah... Dat deh ah fake ting man, dem gi yuh ah baaskit fi cyaary waata, cuz ah dis-hambiguation page him jus ah "Did you mean..." haartical tyital. Why yuh na read FAQ • Man dem cyan join dis chupid DPL WikiProject.
Yuh need fi stap fram bitch up di job an do it propaly. Yuh wan fi stap receivin me message, folla di hopt-out hin-structions. Try cross mi lane an yuh bloodclaat dead. DPL bot (talk)
What ho Marty!. I say, some of chaps are rather confused about whether to insult/inslut/inlsut/inlust you or whatever. Jeeves is suggesting we insulate you on your talk page. Toodle Pip.
I give up. Obviously a waste of your time. To me they're just facts. Yes, they are the same words, in a slightly different order. As ever, I'd be very interested to see how you personally would be able to paraphrase that material, in a way that wasn't "too close". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - the Gabriel/Bush number is good, but very much a Gabriel number, and I feel the Bush contribution could have been done by any decent session singer. Could have been better if Bush's amazing variety of tone and colour (as in Running) had been given freer rein. Whispering Bob Evans (whisper) 13:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some further amendments to the prose re-added by Hillbillyholiday about the windows and it sent from nearly complete overlap to nearly zero overlap. Content has to be written in your own words and not inclusive of the source material. It's been suggested that not so much as three words should be together in the same order as the source. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dianna. That is very helpful and thoughtful advice. I will try and use it, if I ever attempt another summary of a church. It's a great shame that your work is completely hidden at Market Drayton. I'm sure you'll willingly lend a hand if I create a new separate article for St Mary's, won't you? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
whoaah! that's five!! Yes, I'm sure "creative expression" is the very last thing we expect, like the wonderfully poetic "Its replacement stood for many years in the chancel" or the painfully dramatic "when permission was finally granted by the family responsible". Eat ur heart out, Hills:
Loved the remark from an EU diplomat quoted on Radio 4's PM earlier (if they said who exactly I missed it, and I'm paraphrasing a little, but you get the gist): "When the UK was in the EU, it only wanted to negotiate opt-outs. Now it's leaving the EU, it only wants to talk about opt-ins!" JezGrove (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yes, that sounds about right. Did you see last Sunday's HIGNFY? I was thoroughly amused at the caption, suggested by "short-haired flat-shoed shovel-faced lesbian" Ruth Davidson, to that picture of Teresa May and the swordsman: "Now that's what I call a hard Brexit!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Radio 4 unattributed (and paraphrased) EU diplomatic comment of the day (in response to Theresa May's "UK expects full EU role until Brexit" stuff, and either towards the end of PM or on the Six o'clock News): "Britain's acting like a husband who has told his wife he wants a divorce but won't say when, and expects to enjoy marital relations in the meantime…". JezGrove (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Could we please sort out Jimmy Perry's article, in relation to his apparent death? There is only one source to this right now, and BLP states that information that can't be confirmed should be removed.
Since there is no confirmation from any news source that Perry is actually dead, I propose we remove it, as I'd already attempted to do.
If this turns out to be a hoax, it will be an egg on the face job for WP.
By all means be bold and move articles to the titles that you think they should have (checking whether there's previous discussion and basing your choice of title on WP:AT of course), or raise an RM, but not both at once. That just wastes time.
If you find you can't move an article but think it's uncontroversial, put in a technical request at WP:RM. But please don't move an article to a placeholder. That just complicates things. TIA Andrewa (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my explanation? As you will see from the history, the first move was a mistake. I would have moved it straight back but was prevented from doing so, because "title already exists". Would you prefer that I had left the title as a spelling mistake? Why shouldn't self reverts be allowed for such cases? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, and the time and effort you are putting into improving Wikipedia. I'm a volunteer too. WP:creed#1WP:creed#13
Yes, I read your explanation. It would have been irresponsible not to, considering the (small and easily fixed) mess you had created in good faith and the time I was about to invest in fixing it. Read it, thought I understood it, got a coffee. Did you read my request? Did you (re)-read the instructions at WP:RM to which I linked?
I repeat... please do not move to a placeholder. Just immediately raise a technical request. This sort of situation is exactly why we have technical requests. An admin can then immediately perform the move, without waiting for discussion (or will often raise a formal RM themselves if they feel discussion is required... or take other action, we're not encouraged to be quite as bold when using admin tools, but everything is recoverable... I've had to ask for part of the database to be restored from backup only once in many years of admin work, but a careless admin can cause real mayhem! And occasionally has... the record is about two days' partial downtime I think while things were fixed and recovered... our backups have improved since then... could be wrong, there may well have been more serious glitches I didn't even know about. And half a dozen times I've just had to ask a more experienced admin to fix my mess for me...).
Yes, there is often a backlog of technical requests. You might consider becoming a page mover or admin and help us with it! (You'd want to lurk a bit more on WP:RM before either I think... but perhaps not much more, and there are other things admins do too, and backlogs everywhere.) TRs still happen a lot quicker than full RMs, and take a lot less time for an admin to action on average, and most often nobody else needs to even know it happened.
If the move is very urgent there are other procedures... and procedures and procedures and procedures. WP:creed#13 again! Feel free to raise a section on my talk page anytime (as you have done), but that may take a couple of days... or seconds... to action. It does no harm to ask in several places anytime you are really worried, and I'm happy to be one of them.
I think this discussion is time well spent for both of us. So do you understand what I am asking here, and why I am asking it?
Better still, do you think we can improve on this procedure, or on the documentation? I think it misled you, and if so, now your input is exactly what we need to tweak it so this happens less often.
We are all learners here. Self included. Any suggestion you make may just be thrown back in my face if I take it further and seek consensus to action it. Wouldn't be the first time. (;-> We move on. WP:creed#15Andrewa (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Yes, ok... "I promise I will not move to a placeholder." I repeat, "I promise I will not move to a placeholder.", etc., etc. I'm not sure "Gresford isaster" was really "a mess"? Just a slight mistake. Yes, I considered asking technical request. And yes, the expected wait put me off, yet again. Next time I'll just have to wait. Like I said, I don't see why a self revert, to the original title, should not be technicallt possible, for such finger-trouble cases. I'm not sure the ensuing discussion was a complete "waste of time", as some useful points were made. I tried to make it clear, to all commenters, what the intended move was - a waste of my time, I guess. Just surprised that you closed the move without a clear statement on whether or not "Gresford disaster" should never be considered a proper noun. "Proper noun" appears only once at MoS:CAPS. Why do we have London Beer Flood instead of London Beer flood? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen bigger messes! Agree that ideally, all self-reverts should be possible.
In closing the RM, I was evaluating the consensus rather than deciding the issue for myself. There was a rough consensus not to capitalise in my opinion. But see WP:creed#7 for my take on consensus! I'm supposed to consider the validity of the arguments and discard those contrary to logic or policy, but not cast a supervote. It's a rather ambiguous situation.
I spent a decade in EDP audit. One of my standard lines in presentations was It's my job to give people who don't know as much about computers as they would like valid reasons for relying on the information that the computers are giving them. Problem one is, it may not be logically possible to do this... But it seemed to work... mostly...
We tend to go with usage as an overall principle, preferring descriptive grammar to prescriptive grammar. I can argue the capital D both ways personally, having done some studies of grammar myself, and would myself capitalise it! Just as I would capitalise Brown Snake to make it clear it wasn't just a brown variety of Tiger Snake. But I think Wikipedia is going to regard it as a description rather than a proper name, and we just need to move on from that. Both ways work. Andrewa (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isaac looking down to check we've got his Mum and Dad's details right
I checked on Isaac's Wiki page but now also on ODNB. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/20059?docPos=1. Here's the first few lines if you don't have access: "Newton, Sir Isaac (1642–1727), natural philosopher and mathematician, was born on 25 December 1642 in the manor house of Woolsthorpe, near Colsterworth, about 7 miles south of Grantham, Lincolnshire, the only and posthumous son of Isaac Newton (1606–1642), yeoman farmer, and his wife, Hannah (c. 1610–1679), daughter of James Ayscough, gentleman, of Market Overton, Rutland." Cheers, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Stainland edit - much appreciated. You might want to know that the pre-existing para on the Stainland Cross in that article is in part a copyvio (not your doing, I know) from the book which I've reffed in the William Swinden Barber article (A Concise History of the Parish and Vicarage of Halifax, in the County of York (1836), by John Crabtree, p.498: "Stainland Cross") which is in Google Books. Storye book (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghmyrtle:
Martin, I wonder if you, and perhaps Ghmyrtle whom I've tried to ping, would be interested in seeing if we could take Monnow Bridge to FA? As the only bridge of its type in Britain, it more than merits it. I think there's plenty of material, although there'll be a temptation to rely too heavily on Rowlands. And it would be a nice contribution to Monmouth and Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA. Let me know what you think? Happy to try it alone, but thought it could be a fun collaboration. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I've just gone to check with Ghmyrtle to see what he thinks. If he's on board, that would be great. Otherwise, we'll have a go alone. We need to agree tasks, but it shouldn't be hard - something like Castell Coch would probably do:
Trying to get articles to FA is not really my thing (I'm not experienced in it, I dislike both the process and the concept, and I wouldn't be very good at it anyway), and I certainly wouldn't want to take any responsibility for any part of the article - but I don't want to be unhelpful. I have some sources to hand, but I think most of them have already been used in the article. Just looking at the article now, don't you feel there are too many old engravings, etc. - does each of them add something to the article? As I say, I'm happy to help, but it might be best if those involved ask for any help I can give as they go along, and I will keep a watching brief (copy-editing, asking questions, etc.). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, not a problem at all. Having done a few FACs, I can well understand why they are far from being everyone's cup of tea. I shall therefore have a go tout seul, but shall avail myself of the offer to ask for help as I go along. And, as a starter for ten; yes, there are indeed far too many old engravings. Reminds me of the St. Mary's page when it had the pictures of the vicar and the steeple totally obscured by scaffolding. Shall be in touch. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Evening Martin, hope you're keeping well. I did initially put the date on Speed's map but my concern is it's the only illustration I've got for the 13th - 14th-centuries Section and, at 1611, it doesn't really qualify. But no big deal either way, I suppose. I'm quite pleased with how the article's come along. I don't think there's much left but I'm waiting for the National Library of Wales to get back to me re. Mary Ellen Bagnall-Oakeley's Monnow Bridge Tower as they seem to be the only institution in the whole world that may have a copy. Any and all suggestions/amendments much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth taking a look at Wikipedia:Republishers. I feel the need to follow through on this. Any action needs to be taken by the copyright holders (that's us), rather than the WMF, but I need to check when the Aberfan article was copied. I suspect it was before I'd contributed. Just to clarify, anyone can take Wikipedia content and put it into a book (commercial or free), provided they acknowledge the source and contributors. If they don't, its copyvio, and if they claim copyright themselves, it's just adding insult to injury. Robevans123 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems quite paradoxical. I always thought that "copyright free" meant just that - i.e. no-one owns it, and no-one's permission is needed to reuse it. I imagined that these e-book republishers were adding some subtle visual enhancement that allowed them to claim the material was "unique". I also understood that any material that wasn't claarly marked with "copyright free", "public domain" etc., had to be assumed to be protected by copyright - at least this is what I have repeatedly been told when scolded for paraphrasing descriptions of church interiors too closely. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - it is a bit strange. What we contribute is not copyright free. The copyright remains with the contributors, but each time we hit the Save button we are licensing it to be used by anyone for any purpose, providing they acknowledge the source and how the material is licensed, as specified in the Creative Commons License and GNU Free Documentation License, and don't claim copyright themselves - they have to make the material free under a similar license. If they don't acknowledge this, then it becomes a copyright violation. In the same way if, for example, we use Crown Copyright material that is past the 50 year limit, we can quote from it verbatim, so long as we acknowledge the source and that the copyright still remains with the Crown. The copyright still remains with the creator, but they've licensed it to be freely re-used with certain conditions.
Anything that is copyright free (material past the various time limits from creation date, or that has been specifically released with no license requirements, for example, anything on Wikidata) can be used without restriction or acknowledgement. Robevans123 (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Visit to Anglesey?
I was thinking of going to Anglesey next time I holiday in Wales but the strap line to a trailer for this program on BBC Wales read "Anglesey: Nurseries, night watchmen and bananas in back passages" put me off the idea... I suspect a sub-editor on the website is having a bit of a giggle. Robevans123 (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for assisting me with improving that page :) I must say, though, that I wouldn't have introduced quotation marks to the text being put in the blockquote - unless they're in the material being quoted, which I assume is liner notes from the ELO II CD. Or do I have the wrong idea? Please come back to me on that. Harfarhs (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assisting you, I'm just trying to improve the page! WP:MoS for blockquotes says "no surrounding quotes", so I removed those. But I'm not sure it has strict rules on internal quotes. Just trying to follow MoS for titles (including the use of upper case), as we might for internal links. I don't see how it affects the meaning, but I really don't think it matters that much - please revert if you think it causes a problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I meant only that we'd been editing the page at the same time, although I didn't realise you had made changes until I looked at the edit history near the end. Which probably means we're on the same page :) Harfarhs (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Loved the 'Idiots' ad, and it seems to have done the job! He won’t build a wall, he won’t put Hillary in jail, and he won’t make America great again… it will be interesting to see what his supporters do when that finally dawns on them. Still, at least we can look forward to cheaper Marmite and iPhones in the UK again for a while. JezGrove (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those who knew both candidates are equally repugnant, simply wrote in a name (like me, MONGO...MONGO for President) and cast votes for down ballot candidates and issues.--MONGO02:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There should be just one infobox. The Prince infobox is unnecessary unless a dedicated fan of Prince sees the necessity of it? It pushes down another infobox and is already clunky as is. No need to tell readers about less notable songs from Prince album in the infobox. Also, key facts should be summarized, not supplemented, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Facts about the Prince recording are not "key facts". Prince is already credited as the writer of the song, so that is "key" enough, right? And Chaka Khan's version is "key" enough, right? --George Ho (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see it would be difficult to fit all that in an edit summary, but some kind of reasoning might have been useful? Maybe you are right. I'm not sure what MoS says about this. But perhaps all the information about the Prince version should at least appear in the article, as text, since he was the writer and is a very notable artist? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we add text to make up for it? I won't revert you again if you wish to delete it. Probably best if you open a thread on the Talk Page and get other views? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not worth fighting over very much at Wikipedia, but particularly over something as trivial as infoboxes, and quite regardless of who is "responsible", haha. I've learnt that the folks who accomplish most here just walk away from a fight and just improve some of those 5,317,855 articles that nobody's heard about. Just my view. Cheers!! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether to remove the infobox or not. I don't know whether to change it either. While Cohen was the prominent figure (may he rest in peace), especially to the song, his recording never hit the music chart. I made additions of dates, making one of recordings more likely to be the lead image. I'm not concerned whether that would make the article interesting. I want to be certain about prominence of one of recordings. --George Ho (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again George. Personally, being a great lover of the infamous "idiot box", I'd keep it and add an image of a Cohen single cover such as the one here, here or here. But I realise that this may be controversial, as he recorded the song only after Collins, and only then for an album. But if we save a perfectly good infobox, I for one would say "Hallelujah". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say remove the infobox and then use an image of a recording release by either Cohen or someone else. Look at Noël Coward and Talk:Noël Coward, where the RfC discussion resulted in "no consensus" to add infobox by default. It is kinda distracting and misleading. George Ho (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was reading the Talk:Donald Trump page and came across your post and thought there's a fellow I haven't seen in a long while. I know you and I have had our disagreements in the past but I've always admired your cool disposition. Anyho.. Happy editing! g@rycompugeek talk15:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gary. I have every sympathy for anyone who has to read about The Donald, or even see his bizarre orange-toned image. We had our disagreements? While I do recognise your name, I have to admit I have completely forgotten why. So please don't remind me! As for a "cool disposition", I'm sure most editors who know me would describe me as anything but cool. So I'll regard that as an immense compliment. Many thanks! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "12-hour clock times are written in the form 11:15 a.m.". I don't see your exact text. I do however see: "12-hour clock times end with dotted or undotted lower-case a.m. or p.m., or am or pm, preceded by a non-breaking space, e.g. 2:30 p.m. or 2:30 pm" (emphasis mine). Dragons flight (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, you were quoting WP:MOS rather than WP:MOSTIME. However, your quote is inaccurate by omission. You wrote: "12-hour clock times are written in the form 11:15 a.m.". The full quote is "12-hour clock times are written in the form 11:15 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. or in the form 11:15 am and 2:30 pm" (emphasis mine). Dragons flight (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the form presented first was meant to take precedence. Sorry to have misinterpreted the rules so badly. I'm not sure who has now wasted more time over this non error. I'm quite happy of course, to go back and remove all six of those full stops (emphasis mine). Or would that be construed once more as an "arbitrary change from one acceptable form to the other"? Perhaps we can at least agree that "context has determined use of 12-"? Although I'm not sure why. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I don't really care (hence I'm not interested in changing it back), but changing style variants is often a recipe for lame edit wars, so I thought it worth letting you know that such changes are at best unnecessary. Dragons flight (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You live in the wrong country. You do not live in the land of the free and the brave, where it is a self-evident truth that all white, heterosexual, Christian men are created equal.[1]
References
^Some white, heterosexual, Christian men are more equal than others, depending on their bank accounts.
Hi, Martin. Sorry to contact you 'out of the blue'. There seems to be dispute on the above talk page regarding what is included in the section regarding Downey's body being identified. I have Ann West's book, For the Love of Lesley. If you need references to settle the disputes regarding any information you'd like reinserted, I can provide them (or many of them). From what I recall, Alan wanted to identify her, but as he wasn't a blood relative, his request was rebuffed. They wouldn't let her kiss her daughter, and her request for a lock of her hair as a memento was denied. She vomited on seeing her daughter's body and the trinkets she wore and was given some whiskey to steel her nerves afterwards. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kieron, that's very good of you to offer help with a source. I've seen that book in a number of internet searches and I guessed it would probably support that account in the Daily Mail. That's a very poignant story. But I suspect many of the "regular editors" over at Moors murders would see it as "tabloid sensationalism". To me it's a minor fact, but one that the article is currently still missing, suggesting that identification was made on the basis of some of Lesley Ann's clothing and some of Brady's pictures. I have tried to suggest that using a source that requires membership of Manchester Library & Information Service is less than ideal, but have been met with accusations of not WP:AGF and "blatantly not believing" other editors. The consensus over there seems to be that, once an article reaches FAC status, no more improvements are possible and that every exact word has to be kept in exactly the same order. To me this seems a little shortsighted. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Petites Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry has been nominated for Did You Know
"Like Polyphemus blinded, Anthea Hamilton's Brobdingnagian buttocks appear defeated, rendered eyeless and helpless. Forever frozen in a functionless limbo – one immediately recalls Hirst's shark – this 'derrière contraire' arouses not our passions, but our pity. Yet in a world given over to verbal diarrhoea and emotional encopresis, perhaps its reticence, its restraint, its inherent retentiveness should be lauded, as indeed should the artist – I mean, it's not every day one gets to see a twenty-five foot goatse in a gallery, is it?" .micro.dot.cotton (talk)
Martinevans123, I was wondering if you could tell me which newspapers are to be avoided for this article. The Sun is clearly out; it appears that the Telegraph is in. What about the Mirror or the Daily Mail? I've also found this interview, but I'm not sure how reliable blog interviews are considered. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Blue Moony. Well the Daily Mirror is a deffo tabloid and is deffo out. The Daily Mail is less clear - interview sources are generally tolerated. But beware, some editors will not permit it at any cost. Broadsheets are always to be preferred. Danny is heading for stardom now and so sources should not be too difficult to find. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, which I agree not every person who suffered from mental illness should be in this category, Gurney's illness was a part of his notability. His illness predated his war service, and his length of confinement and death in an asylum are key distinguishing features of his career (vis-a-vis other WWI poets) -- without this category, I'm afraid this key aspect of his career will be missed. Clevelander96 (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Clevelander96, thanks for your note. Ivor Gurney's mental illness was certainly a key factor in our understanding of him as a person. But could you explain to me why his own illness is significant to the entire history of mental illness in the UK? He ought to fit a further category at Category:People by medical or psychological condition, but I'm not sure which. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. I wonder if you know who the anonymous ip editor 81.151.38.220 who added that Category might be? I've seen a spate of such additions, mostly unjustified in my view, over a variety of articles, over the last few weeks.[reply]
Hi Martinevans123, thanks for your reply -- I hadn't known the backstory on this category. It sounds as though a People subcategory would be much more appropriate; I will have a look and see if there's one that would be a suitable fit. And no, alas, I'm not sure as to the anonymous user is. A few years back, several members of the Ivor Gurney Society were active on his page, but it's been a while since I first put the article on my watchlist; sounds like somebody who added the cat for reasons other than just this one entry. Thanks again, Clevelander96 (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Petites Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry
Hi Andi, Thanks for your note. Yes, I've left a comment on your web page. I don't doubt your good faith. Creating a new article can be a bit daunting. Take some time to read about Wikipedia policies and procedures first {there are some links in that message at the top of Talk page) and you may find it easier and less frustrating. There is no deadline. Take as long as you need. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry to hear that "Old Rambler" has been evicted yet again. I'd like to publicly apologise to him for insulting (albeit unwittingly) the memory of his late grandmother in an attempt to adjust a caption for a picture on his User page last September. And apologies also, of course, for being unaware that he even had a grandmother. And to thank him for not bearing the slightest grudge for the past 15 months. I think I once made a ridiculously outlandish accusation that he was a sockpuppet, but I think I got away with it and it's all now water under the bridge. Sincere apologies if I ever described him as "a bossy self-serving obsessive with an ego bigger than the entire Wikipedia archive". "obvs"
Deepest apologies also to "Mike V Shirt", for not accepting, without a murmur, all those sockpuppet accounts that he said I created in July, but which I had never actually seen before (especially the ones that made no edits). Sincere apologies if I ever described him as "a trigger-happy bully with all the finesse of Wyatt Earp, but none of the boyish good-looks". B. Littler 123 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. note to drive-by admins - angling here for pages of discussion at A/N, AN/I and AE, followed by an indef block here (but two weeks over Christmas will do fine, thanks.) "obvs". [reply]
I assure you my knowledge isn't based on his wording (see here and here - I can add more). They are traits hardly atypical of children who've sadly endured all forms of abuse and neglect. They develop these kinds of disorders. I'll leave it to you to reinsert or morph it into the text. In fact, these links I've provided would be better than yet another page from Sounes's book, IMO....--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kieron. They might well be, but we'd be simply replacing Sounes' own original research with our own. And I see no explicit mention of squint in those two. There is some evidence with regard to speech disorder, I think, but I believe squint, which after all is a congenital abnormality, has much less medical credence. Perhaps User:Doc James could advise? Unless we could find an alternative secondary source that mentions the West family, in relation to these supposed "classic symptoms of abuse children", I'd personally be tempted to leave that claim out altogether. Just my view. Maybe worth a thread at the Talk page? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I've always respected your tenacious observations (no attempt at flattery intended). The primary problem lies with Sounes's usage of a generic term of 'squinting' (which I take as being psychologically and nerve based as opposed to eye alignment)? To negate any WP:OR accusations, we could find a few references from eminent fields mentioning this being a classic/typical symptom? I could find a secondary book source hearkening to this being a general trait in victims of this neglect/abuse, but doubt it'll specifically mention the West family as being an example? Journey into Darkness by John Douglas would likely be a good start. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand "squint" has been used to mean "stabismus"[10]
Thanks. Other sections of the paragraph used in the reference refer to the pathogenic history of the family between the 70s and 90s. I suppose it boils down to how you interpret Sounes's term. I could readjust the sentence to be more direct and with a more qualified reference? Martin, what do you think?--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doc - many thanks for that very prompt help. But I have to admit that connotation was my own assumption and my link, which I have now adjusted to the more general dab article. Keiron - "a seal squints in the sun", or so we are told. But we're not told anything there about the West family, or indeed about child abuse in general. Checking page 344 of Sounes, he does indeed just say: "Thrush and gonorrhoea had been present in the family and the children were afflicted with speech impediments and squints—classic symptoms of abused children". He offers no sources or explanation for those claims. If you are keen to mention some of the other health issues that the children suffered, there's no shortage in that final Epilogue chapter. Otherwise I can only suggest we frame it as a quote like, "Journalist Howard Sounes, who broke the West story, claims that "the children were afflicted with speech impediments ...". Or else maybe just leave it out? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't mind either way, Martin. I am practically finished with populating the article. Sounes is an author; he's not propagating his own assumptions, just rehashing extensively reported information in his book. As for the squint link, the "refractive errors of the eye" is the pertinent section of the link for me as he used a general, ambiguous medical term on p. 344--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, he is. The Indy article is a good source, which also mentions the "thrush and a minor for gonorrhoea" and also "a catalogue of injuries to tendons, fingers and chests, as well as lacerations between the toes of the children, some supposedly self-inflicted." But no mention there of speech disorders or squint. I'll make a stab of my suggested re-word, but feel free to replace it if you wish. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed it (hope you approve). Was a little contentious to claim even though they are common traits of distress. I'm going to upload a fair use rationale image or two either later tonight or tomorrow. Best regards and have a good Christmas. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Oversight is practically Martin's middle name. I still think my suggestions re splitting the victim/crime details to a separate article, and either combining Rose and Fred, or not combining them and moving Rose-only material to her article, are still pertinent. After that I think what most needs reduction is the minute-by-minute account of the searches and warrants and suspicions and digging and ... EEng23:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Combining them would need a broader consensus first. When that goes one way of the other, other issues addressed here can be looked into? I'll say again in my opinion they should both be one article.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OR
My sister says she would definitely have choked to death at lunch at work one day, had not the sole cow-orker in the room noticed her distress and applied the Heimlich. I'd have posted this in any case, since it was obviously notable, and I was surprised it wasn't up for my support. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to think that until recently, cow-orkers were reviled and persecuted based on some misinterpreted passages from Leviticus. How far we've come. EEng02:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have never found the urge to ork a cow. Never even been tempted. And I generally treat any who do advocate such dubious actions with the disdain they undoubtedly deserve. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Season's Greetings, Martinevans123! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk17:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. May you have prolific and honorific editing in your future. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen (☎)15:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I did not know that one; and I missed it when I read [some] of Love's Labour's Lost. And "It is also the longest word in the English language featuring only alternating consonants and vowels." How cool is that. It would be a great user name. 7&6=thirteen (☎)16:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A Barnstar for you
The Working Man's Barnstar
Just for general, tireless, objective diligence and an uncanny ability to (with a perfect blend of humour and professionalism), maintain other editors' morale. Seasons Greetings, too.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's that time of year
Merry Chrismukkah Martinevans123!!
Hi Martinevans123, only once in a lifetime do Christmas and Hanukkah fall on the same day.
This is the year you will experience that blessed occasion in your life.
I pray that yours is filled with light, love, and a buttload of gifts.
'ello 'ello 'ello Martinevans123, PC White 'ere, informing you that the season of drunken indulgence is upon us, and because my sauces tell me you might've been a bit slack in that regard recently, you are hereby ordered to eat that last mince pie and enjoy it! PC White | The station
Martin, many thanks and all best wishes to you and yours. KJP1 (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]
Blimey, Carrie Fisher, Richard Adams... I thought 'More or Less was tempting fate doing its analysis of whether there had been an increase in celebrity deaths in 2016 in mid-December but this is getting ridiculous :0( JezGrove (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Martinevans123. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:Nathan Wyburn.jpg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.
If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.
If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.
Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jezza!! I think we got the gist of that and we all just assumed you'd had one too many dry sherries, vicar. Sorry to say that Reg has largely passed me by, I'm afraid, maybe because, for me, she sounds less like a musician and more like a medical procedure. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... you were recipient no. 354 of Precious, a prize of QAI!
... and I only had to change the year, because I used your name for the 3-year model ;) - Happy 2017, moar on top of my talk, which also reports below the first WP:Great Dismal Swamp and the first retirement of the year, both hurting, - it can get a lot better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Although a quick look at the stats will show that I'm not really a "prominent contributor" to that article! Two minor points which might have to be raised over there: is Mair regarded as English or Scottish - might have a bearing on which assassin Categories are proposed (that might be a whole separate RfC, of course)? 2. The article still has a "WP:OP" tag at the top - so we might be on dodgey ground basing any Cats on current article content? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I should notify you anyway since you were involved in the dispute. Hopefully we won't need another RfC on which categories are used; I think the category "British assassins" could in theory take care of that. LinguistIf you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message17:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Swansea is really the new Shoreditch* it follows logically, since Shoreditch's main shopping centre is a large ungainly pile of old shipping containers. (Unbelievably, given that WMUK's and Google's head offices are about 20 seconds walk away, Boxpark is still a red link.) ‑ Iridescent16:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply] *I assume they mean "shopping area with an emphasis on independent outlets and actively discouraging the chainstores, fast-food outlets and pub chains from getting a foothold", not "grim post-industrial shithole with unemployment and crime rates about five times the national average, where a small handful of wealthy hipsters give the town centre the appearance of prosperity despite most of the residents living in abject poverty".
Thank you for your message on the administrators noticeboard. I would have preferred that JohnCD were in fact alive. I have been offline preparing a presentation on the Battle of the Somme. Since it is to be made soon, I will be offline again for a few days. In any event, the thread was closed while I was offline. I thought I would respond to your question about the e-mail by saying that I in fact did send an e-mail to his online e-mail address at the invitation of his son. I noted that I would do so in passing in response to the first message, but that could have been lost in the flurry of activity. I did not mention it on the noticeboard or elsewhere so someone who did not see the interaction on my talk page would not have known about it. In retrospect, perhaps I should have mentioned it. I don't know whether there is a protocol or whether it should be done in another type of case without invitation, but it does seem to be quite a good idea. Most people, though I am sometimes lax, check their e-mail quite often, usually daily. An e-mail from another Wikipedian about such a notice on the recipient's user talk page surely would draw a response within a few days - barring something like a severe illness, I suppose. Thanks again. Donner60 (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's just the sort of thing I was thinking. Perhaps everyone ought to be able to nominate an "independant contact" email address when registering (maybe they now can, it's so long ago since I did). Maybe a nominated "duty admin" ought to email the user concerned in this kind of situation and add a notice to the Talk Page, to alert other editors to "reports of deceased, pending comnfirmation", or something. Of course, not everyone has an email link. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea to me. Having a regular contact administrator and a procedure could give users assurance they are handling it the right way and avoid controversy. It also seems a more careful way to initiate confirmation. Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think (but do not yet have a source for this) that one name applies to the tree, the other name to the fire mark (Pluto's Chimney). 7&6=thirteen (☎)20:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could be a Stereoscope. I personally own a Holmes Stereoscope, and the slides we have look like that. I was not suggesting a correction was needed. There were a lot of formats and devices at the time. Kind of like Beta and VHS, etc. 7&6=thirteen (☎)21:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My brother-in-law bet on Beta, something he will never get over (or live down). Then too, the same b-i-l (at an earlier time in a younger iteration) got on the hood of my newly repainted 58 Beetle and was standing on it in his horseshoe cleats scratching it. Something else I will never forget, and he won't get too either. But I digress.
FYI, speaking of hanging chads. Pluto's Chimney is about 100 feet away from the Pioneer Cabin Tree. "Tree Wonders of California". The Phrenological Journal and Life Illustrated. 53 (1): 46. July 1871. [The Cabin Tree is] so named from the cabin like chamber and chimney its hollow trunk exhibits...7&6=thirteen (☎)20:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the tree made the Main Page after all - and replacing Granny the Orca, too. Clearly not enough (human) celebs are popping their clogs in 2017, which could be a welcome relief after the last few weeks! JezGrove (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So much for your prediction about an adverse wind blowing down this article. You have a future in political polling; can't be worse than ... the alternative. 7&6=thirteen (☎)19:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure. That thing needs refs or removal, - and I can't do it. - Unrelated: I just thanked you for an edit, but meant the next one, as you will have guessed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might have been for the previous, but whatever. Ah yes, I see. I blame "Billy No Hills". It's all his fault. He might even have some of the real books stashed under his bed. Perhaps we'll have to plead for help from the Irish Mafia. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I archived infobox-related stuff (a lot) end of 2015. Waiting (amused, but these days you get cited to ANI if you use dirty words such as "have fun") how long it will take to sink in. I don't care if your article has an infobox, never did. I care when you revert one. I didn't care about this, confessing that it also amused me. Can we now talk about something else, such as art and music? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, from the king of pun and entendre and YouTube....
... I thought this one was a gimme. Maybe you're a little older than I had thought and this nugget of pop culture passes you by. Now re-read the far-from-belittling-but-bantertastic convo. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness me! An oblique and unexplained YouTube clip from yesteryear! Way out of my league. You just be mad. But ah, Rushie! The best player to wear that sacred red shirt. You know, wasn't it? Jumpers for goalposts. *wipes away tear* Ron Manager123 (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello M. I hope that you are well. I had a brain flash (or fart if you prefer) about this. If the field was changed to "Where are they now" wouldn't that cover all the possibilities? :-D Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk17:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although unsourced, it is known fact Will Champion provides lead backing vocals for Coldplay. And for Yellow, his backing vocals can be seen during many live performances. Again I'm sorry for no source, but I'm just going by logical conclusion. As for the Mellotron, it can actually be heard throughout the end of Yellow. I'll attempt to find a source however. I'm just trying to let you know the reason for that edit I made, and how it isn't really out of place at all. USMC Lance (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does sound like a Mellotron, doesn't it. Wikipedia requires sources not our personal knowledge of what may or may not be "well known facts" or "logical conclusions." If they are indeed well-known facts, finding a source should be easy. Why not open a discussion at Talk:Yellow (Coldplay song), and then others can also search. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah thank you. I see that clarification needed edit you made on the Fix You page, and that seems much better for not 100% verifiable claims, or claims with no sources. It's especially effective for claims with no sources as for example, with a song, not every part of it will be discussed or detailed in reliable sources. Like with Fix You, you can't really find any reliable song reviewer discuss any less important part of the song, like the synthesizer and string sections that can clearly be heard with a good listen. For obvious reasoning as those would seem to be instruments added just for musical texture. So thanks for that. You're also right about the well-known facts and I'll try to start incorporating sources as much as I can. I'll add that clarification needed edit as well sometimes, for rightful claims I can't source or anything. USMC Lance (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, Lance. You're right, reviewers don't usually comment about small details of arrangement and so they often fall through the net. Unless we have credits from the album cover, it's going to be subjective. I am quite surprised that the band did not give more complete instrument credits. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's true. This is a meaningless award. I didn't say they were great edits (quality is evanescent and contextual, in the eye of the beholder as it were). We should not get too enamored of edit counts In the grand scheme of Wikipedia, your first edit is as important as yesterday's. And you have consistently contributed to building an encyclopedia -- communicating in a collegial mannner with other editors is worthwhile. Kudos.
Ironically, like receiving an award for addictionandOCD. Both of which are integral to being a great editor in the trenches. I would say you should have on your page the CATEGORY: Wikipedians who edit Wikipedia, but they just deleted it. {:>{)> Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎)16:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Music for the occasion: today I have three DYK to offer, but didn't get the TFA as I hoped, - well, for myself I translate that as "in peace and joy I let go" and believe it's a good way to go, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to mention that I'm not Welsh or an expert on Wales, simply copying names from categories and adding them to this list to try and fill it out a bit, to make it more on a scale with the lists of English, Scottish and Irish writers. Please add and alter entries as you think best. Thanks for your help, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Brian. Thanks for your note. My main concern is that some may complain these people were not mainly notable as writers. So we'll have to see how it goes. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I put the writing first as it's a list of writers, but each entry is a person, so perhaps the person's attributes should come in order of importance. Let me know what you decide. Bmcln1 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin. I just saw your recent edit on Sophie, Countess of Wessex. Thanks for correcting my mistakes. Sometimes these errors can be found as I'm not a native speaker of English, so I would like to ask you a favor. Would you please check these four sections on Diana, Princess of Wales: "Problems and separation", "Charity work", "Personal life" and "Legacy" to see if there's any grammatical error between the sentences? It's just a review and you can do it whenever you like. I hope what I have requested is possible. Keivan.fTalk13:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Pinball front cover.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Pinball front cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi Martin. Do you need consensus to protect articles that are vandalised, or would an editor like myself be authorized to protect an article indefinitely? One article in particular seems to be attracting semi-regular vandalism.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Keiron. As far as I know you just need to offer sufficient evidence to an (interested) Admin. They may have other ideas - like an IP range block, a temporary block or a longer semi-protection. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Pill's section on 'Plan for designated area for prostitution' and thought we finally had clarity on the UK's economy post-Brexit, before realising that I'd made the elementary David Davies/Davis error. Ah well, back to the drawing board (where I'll doubtless bump into the real Brexit secretary...) JezGrove (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was not a constructive edit at all! The Kalmykov, Nelip and Moe you said in your edit summary "are not notable and linkable" ARE THE AUTHORS CITED THROUGHOUT THE ARTICLE!
Just because you think you are a master editor and you put a picture of a medal on your user page, that doesn't give you permission to make poor edits that replace attributions with an anonymous authority! When you do this you make Wikipedia worse, because you make referenced material look like original research.
Maybe you could put in some effort to focus on quality edits not quantity of edits. Reading these two essays, WP:WEASEL and Wikipedia:Attribution, might help you.
The article is locked and I can't fix it. I left a message on the talk page and hopefully someone who's not an idiot reads it an fixes the article.
If you admit you made a mistake, you can fix it yourself. Of course, if you are too vain and you think you are the Master Editor, I'm sure you can find some flatterer to stroke your ego some more and you can spend your time pimping your user page. Just don't go around removing legit attributions just to pump up your edit count.
Could you kindly remove this personal attack? Or you may face some kind of warning or sanction. This is the second time you've added a snide and condescending message here. The first time you had the good sense to retract it. I've already responded to your objection, to the removal of three names in the caption, over the past five hours at the article Talk page where the discussion is still ongoing. The three names now appear in the adjacent article text instead. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean no personal attack of any kind. You made an edit that was not constructive and that issue has not been resolved. I had initially retracted my original post to your talk page because I recognized that the scorn I conveyed wasn't originally intended just for you, personally. I am just especially upset by the type of editor (or person in general) that claims great skill while acting incompetent, and I felt like you represented that because you made a non-constructive edit and while your user page claims you are a "Master Editor", you couldn't seem to acknowledge that your edit was bad.
I restored this section on your talk page, in case you wanted to reply or archive it. I felt that by retracting my comment, I might have prevented the opportunity for you to do such, if you so wished. It's on your talk page and you can delete or archive this section if you want, I have no objections, and I will not post again regarding this issue if you choose to do so. If you reply I will try to respond, but no guarantees.
I had some free time today; I feel like I might have wasted it, still, part of me is hoping that I didn't. Of course I do realize all my efforts might just be "fel rhech mewn pot jam" ;-)
Then I guess you are just unintentionally offensive. You might not have wasted your time if you had been able to offer a compromise, or even adopt a more co-operative approach. I don't claim any sort of great skill - "Master Editor" is based on edit count, nothing more. I don't need any flatterer "to stroke my ego some more" and I don't need to spend any time "pimping my user page", thanks. I have no idea what "fel rhech mewn pot jam" is meant to mean. Ond efallai yr hoffech chi eu hatgoffa bod "gwr heb bwyll, llong heb angor". I'd be interested to know on which article(s) you gained your obvious Wikipedia experience. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can be crass sometimes. There is no compromise that I can make that would give you the aptitude to understand a concept if it is beyond your comprehension. Yes, that is a tautology, but that just means I am certainly right. I did offer you a cooperative approach: I noticed your edit was bad, and I explained on the talk page how to fix it. If you had heeded my advice, and could admit your mistake and fix it, that would have been cooperation.
"Fel rhech mewn pot jam" is just some welsh slang for someone who is useless, literally "like a fart in a jar".
Yes, rational thought is an anchor.
I've been a contributor to Wikipedia since it's inception. I don't keep track of my contributions and I'm not looking for credit. I'm not interested in Wikipedia for social networking. I love Wikipedia and I want Wikipedia to succeed as a great encyclopedia. I can't contribute a lot of time to wikipedia anymore. I still use Wikipedia often enough, just for my own amusement/personal learning and if I notice something I can easily do to improve it, I'll try to do it.
Ah yes, right. You have concepts that are beyond my comprehension. Like the world being a totality of facts. Except that you're one of the things I could so do without. Perhaps you'd like to show me how to link the authors Kalmykov, Nelipa and Moe? If you've spent your whole time here, from the inception of Wikipedia, telling people they are wrong, it's no surprise that any opportunity for social networking will have been somewhat limited. And you think the Welsh word for "jar" is "pot jam"? Thanks for enlightening me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the source of worldly concepts; I know nothing. Concepts beyond your comprehension are not my doing, they are just a fact of the universe. I was just quoting Ludwig Wittgenstein, because I thought you might have read him since you created a wikipedia alternate account called Wittlessgenstein, which I have to admit, thought was a little bit witty when I first read the name, but maybe the name you chose was just a coincidence. I know you might not like people like me that call you out when you are wrong, but if you surround yourself only with yes-men, you will never be all that you can be. I will offer this insight: it is usually pretty easy to correct someone's text when they've made a small error, but it's exponentially more difficult to convince someone that they've erred in the first place! You are a great example. If I'm not mistaken, I still can't convince you that removing legit attributions from Wikipedia articles is wrong, and not constructive. I'm no expert on Welsh, and I welcome your personal experiences, but "pot jam" for "jam pot", aka "jar", to me, that doesn't seem like much of a stretch for a translations(and if anything one of the easier translations, welsh-to-english). 24.246.21.101 (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, we're now at GA. I'll push it through to Peer Review shortly and then, comments permitting, on to FA. Your input, particularly at the latter stage, would be very much appreciated. Hoping you are keeping well. KJP1 (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Food photography can turn anything into food-porn and make it look irresistible. But since I my friend lacks some of the necessary ingredients, I think I'll my friend will stick with Lapin Agile. (Which is utter fucking crap by the way – I saw it in San Francisco.) Softlavender (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Martin, I had about three hours' work on hand when you arrived, and I'm afraid I lost your changes. Could you do them again? Many apologies. Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it should. I was thinking of going through it one day to see if those on it appear in the List of Welsh writers. Bmcln1 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response to your message
Martin, apologies I just replied to a message I thought was from Ritchie333 but now see you had signed it at the bottom which I had missed when I originally saw it. Thus please see my response to what you had said to me there.
Thanks for telling me. Wikipedia technicalities can take a bit of getting used to. It's encouraging that User:Ritchie333 has taken so much time in trying to address your concerns. But I think he might find it a bit frustrating that he now seems to have unwittingly become the sole spokesman for all the editors who have an interest in the article. I'd be very grateful if you could address the question I've raised at the Talk:Georgina Downs page. That's where any discussion over suitable sources, and most other topics, should be taking place. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In reply
Martin,
I have already answered it and sent the links and so hopefully one of them will be a suitable source considering Ritchie previously said that both Ecologist and House of Lords material is acceptable.
In relation to your comments re Ritchie he told me at the bottom of a number of messages to get back to him if still have concerns and at the bottom of his talk page. Further he posted on an administrators board to say he was dealing with it and hence professionally and for consistency it is usually better to deal with one person rather than multiple different people.
Anyway, apart from still responding regarding some of the other award sources that Ritchie was referring to in his message yesterday as I know other awards and affiliations have been sourced in some of the broadsheets and so I shall seek them out and send on in case they can be added in.
However, one absolutely crucial error still remains. I am still wrongly being called an "environmental activist". I have explained why this is not the way to describe my work and campaign at great length. I note that those words are tagged into a separate Wikipedia page and am now wondering whether that is why no one is removing this even though it is not the correct description and if so that is surely just self promotional at Wikipedia's end? I have looked at that separate page and as I have continued to correctly state that is not what I should be described as. The only place I have been called that appears to be in farming publications that use the term in an attempt to demean.
I repeat I do not work for any environmental NGO or group, I am not a paid up member of the Green Party and there is no evidence to support that description of me except in those farming press articles which I am surprised you even consider as a reliable source with the bias such articles present.
The campaign is a voluntary independent campaign and I do not personally and never have taken any wage for. Having read that separate Wikipedia page for the definition of "environmental activist" then it is even more confirmed to me that that cannot be used to describe what I do. If this is not changed to correctly describe me as a campaigner as many many articles have continued to do over the last 16 years as it is factually correct then I will have to find a way to take this higher as it is not acceptable to be wrongly described about what I do in a page about what I do!
Thanks to Martin for including the journalist there though as that is appreciated but it would also be appreciated if the rest of the wording in that description at the beginning can be resolved as soon as possible.
Hi "Thefactcorrecter" (have you not had any second thoughts at all about that choice of username? as it seems to be a slight disservice to all your fellow Wikipedia editors who think they are doing that exact same thing.) It's useful to keep discussion about article content on the Talk page for that article. But yes, issues that require administrator action are best kept with one administrator. You seem to have valuable inputs to make on both of these topics? You've been described as an "environmental activist" by a reliable source. That's not a problem for me, but it seems to be a huge problem for you. If you feel that strongly, then I guess you'll need to ask the reporter or editor concerned, at www.farminguk.com, to correct it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC) p.s. just on a purely personal level, I don't see the description "environmental activist" as "demeaning". Not sure if that helps you, but there it is.[reply]
Please note it clearly says “Miss Downs, whose home near Chichester, West Sussex, borders crop fields, launched her independent UK Pesticides Campaign in 2001.”
This further supports what I said in the previous message and I thought this fits more Wikipedia’s supposed criteria of a reliable and unbiased source than that of the Farming UK article. That I repeat was not the correct description of what I do and should be replaced with this source and the related wording that I am a campaigner or run an independent campaign.
Also this link here about the 2014 nomination for the Local Hero Observer Ethical Award (which is separate to the 2015 one that is already referred to in the Wikipedia page) also supports my point in the previous message regarding the fact that the independent campaign is voluntary. Scroll down to find the small Guardian para relating to me here https://www.theguardian.com/observer-ethical-awards/2014/apr/22/observer-ethical-awards-vote
I therefore reiterate again please correct the inaccurate description of me and my work on the page as I am not an “environmental activist” with the Wikipedia description linked to. I am a campaigner and journalist simple as that. This is wholly unacceptable to be wrongly described.
Hi again Thefactcorrecter. You can repeatedly tell me and reiterate all you like. But unfortunately, for the purposes of Wikipedia, your comments here are not seen as a reliable source. That's not my decision. It's just policy here. Thanks for the Cosmopolitan award link. It would be useful if you could add that at the article talk page or directly in the article itself. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason why you can't add this source to the article yourself? I realise that I might have missed some advice that User:Ritchie333 has given you in the course of the very extensive discussions at his Talk Page. But there is no actual policy that prevents editors adding to a articles about themselves. Especially if they are real improvements. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. On second thoughts, as another editor has reminded me, you should not be editing the article at all. I guess that means you will need to rely on the understanding and cooperation of other editors to ensure that the article gives a fair representation of you and your work. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response to your message
Hi Martin,
Well the last I knew someone had blocked me for trying to quite rightly correct things yesterday but just seen that I now can actually get in there.
However, I am really not a technical person I am afraid and I don't know how to add the references bits otherwise I would do it myself. You will see that both the link confirming the Cosmopolitan award and the link confirming I am a journalist under the IFAJ and BGAJ accredited journalists bodies are correct and can be added in as the citations. If you don't want to do it then I can see if Ritchie might be able to add them in next week as I think he has stopped working for the weekend.
I note that James has now amended the wording at the beginning although not replaced the reference 2 to the relevant source Telegraph article I included in an earlier message here and so I shall message him direct (as I have seen that he has messaged me on his talk page).
Thanks. I'm not really sure I'm "involved" just for stumbling across that block and asking a few questions. I think User:Cassianto sometimes finds it hard to keep his comments to himself. Even when he's "retired." But I'm just amazed at how that all started. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the formatted refs on the F-35 article the other day. A new editor visiting that page yesterday is apparently making a quibble about the use of the phrase "procurement and upkeep" in order to justify a full sequence of reverts and deletions. I'm thinking he is upset about the excessive cost overruns in the program though the reliable sources are clear on this as accurately describing the program. Could you take look at the deletions made by that editor at some point? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New F-35 looks more healthy now. The user name you refer to above was from when I noticed that the film for it had no plot summary, for which I added a short version in due recognition of that mathematician. Regarding Moore, there are two Henry Moore's on Lake Michigan, you obviously are familiar with the one and the other one is here [18]. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender has given you a mitten! Mittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a mitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Regarding that other matter -- you're probably right. Plus I didn't realize D used the P word twice, which was a bit much. Let's just all forget (or pretend) that all of this never happened. And Trump did not have relations with Putin. Case closed. Softlavender (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Edited to add: The logic and syntax of that third sentence is messed up, but screw it. It had a nice ring to it. Softlavender (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.... And I notice the Yanks still do not understand. Either that or Mercury retrograde is just kicking everybody's ass. Either way, I think I'll chill till it "blows over" .... Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. That dame is giving Trump a run for his money in terms of broken promises, delusional proclamations, and insane objectives. Worst time in history for the Labour leadership to be worse than a half-drunk slug. Softlavender (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Just to clarify, this was not aimed at you, but at the IP who kept adding the album originally without a link to anything, and then zapped the hidden note. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello M. I saw your edit here and it reminded me that this was the favorite soundtrack of a good friend of mine in college. It has been decades since I last saw him so it was nice to call back those memories. with your comprehensive knowledge of music I thought I'd share this with you. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk21:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MarnetteD! Thanks so much. This remains one of my favourite films ever. And it's not as if I thought that Anderson (just like Man Ken) was ever really that good. For me, he always had a strange kind of "static animated photograph" style, if you know what I mean. But (apart from the wonderful McDowell) that film was wholly and unexpectedly redeemed by the soundtrack - to me the film was just an illustration of the songs. Alan Price the true genius in that film, as in so much of his work. Totally wonderful. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks to you for sharing your thoughts. That film introduced me to Price and I have marveled at his work ever since. I also have to thank you for the delightful and informative links that you add to your posts. I know that eggs aren't allowed in articles but I always enjoy (as well as learn things from) the ones you place on talk pages :-) MarnetteD|Talk22:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked this already in some distant past (though I can't immediately find it now), but I see no improvements yet. Could you please remove all youtube links which are potential copyright violations (all youtube links where you are not certain that image and sound are either public domain or rightlfully owned by the uploader) from yuor user pages, and stop using such links in your posts? They may be amusing or on topic, but they are definitely not allowed on Wikipedia. One can make pop culture or obscure references without providing an explanatory but otherwise problematic link. Fram (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, no problem. Will do when I have the chance. In response to your earlier request I hid all the links at the top of my Talk page in a collapsible box. Perhaps you don't see that as any improvement. I was under the impression, and still am, that YouTube removes videos if the copyright holder requests it. Perhaps you know differently. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Youtube knowingly hosts copyright violations, or removes them once they are made aware of them, is of no importance to us. They certainly make no effort to find them proactively (unlike we at enwiki). We are not allowed to link to pages with copyright violations, full stop. That it is their responsability to remove these violations is not important here (it may be legally important or not, IANAL), our policies are a lot stricter. Hiding such links in a copllapsible box is not really an improvement, they are still there, and your user page starts with uncollapsed youtube links which seem to be copyright violations (e.g. the Eddie Izzard one and the Les McCann one). See WP:LINKVIO if you want more information on what is allowed and what isn't. Fram (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. I think it would be of some importance to us, if YouTube fully policed it's content. And I think most artists see such videos as useful publicity, even as a revenue stream where monetisation is involved. Just out of interest - do you know if Wikipedia has ever faced any legal challenge from a copyright holder for hosting a YouTube video link? I would have thought that, in the grand scheme of the internet, no-one really cares what's hidden away on my Talk Page or in my Talk page posts (well, except you, obviously). But rules are rules, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube is awash with music videos and clips from TV shows etc that were not uploaded by the copyright holder. Strictly speaking, Wikipedia should not link to any of these per WP:YOUTUBE. It's up to the copyright holder to decide what to do in this situation. Sometimes they ask for the video to be removed, but on other occasions they allow adverts to be placed alongside the video. YouTube has a system called Content ID which checks videos against a database of copyrighted material. It looks like the John Lemon video has been removed. Sorry about that, as they say on YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)09:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian. Yes you are quite right. But I must admit I has assumed that legally responsibility lay with YouTube. I’ve linked videos that, you know, have been uploaded for say five years and have had many thousands, in some cases millions of views. One kind of assumes that any copyright problem would have become apparent by now. I didn’t realise that I was exposing Wikipedia to a huge legal risk by squirrelling away a third party link in a hidden box on my lowly Talk Page (which must be totally ignored by millions of people on a daily basis). But “rules are rules” and Fram obviously likes to see them enforced. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fram, my Talk Page Wiki Jukebox is now empty. Happy now? Of course the links are all still there, just one click away, in the history. Is someone now supposed to redact each individual addition manually? Is that what is supposed to happen to all content that may be an infringement of copyright, as per our much stricter policies? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If someone feels the need to redact the history or remove all such links from your talk page posts all over enwiki, they are free to do so. For me, it is sufficient if from now on, you simply stop adding potentially problematic youtube links to your pages or posts. Thank you for removing these so promptly. Fram (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong there. I think your time would be better spent patrolling article mainspace and removing dubious links to YouTube videos used as sources or external links. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to your question on my talk page. Checking again, I see that e.g. Eddie Izzard youtube link is still on your user page, even though I can find no confirmation that Mssilversphinx would have the right to post this clip on Youtube. Please remove this and all similar links from all your user and talk pages. Fram (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. now on your user page, you haev a long list of youtube links. The first one is from "Coldplay official", so that should be alright (if someone creates a fake "coldplay official" youtube channel, it really no longer is your or our responsability to notice this). But the second one, a Herbie Hancock uploaded by Jazzhole? No evidence that they have the rights as far as I can see. GessyNya and Kevin Coyne? Same problem. I notice that a Steely Dan link no longer works due to a copyright claim by IFPI, so that one as well wa smost likely a link to a copyright violation. Please go through all these links and remove all probleatic ones, or (perhaps better) remove them all, and then only readd the safe ones. Fram (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's very gratifying to see you taking an interest in my YouTube links at last. I'll go through them all and review them one by one. It will be fun. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LINKVIO and WP:YOUTUBE apply to articles, and do not mention usertalk. If there is a policy about usertalk, can someone please link to it? Wikipedia users are prohibited from uploading unlicensed copyrighted material (images or audio or film), but I've never seen a restriction on casually linking to copyrighted material in usertalk conversation, no matter where it is hosted (YouTube, Rhapsody, Spotify, etc.). Softlavender (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, that's the second time in a row that you misinterpret policy and give false information to other editors based on it. Please stop giving advice about policy if it is so often wrong. Fram (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False information
Hello Martinevans123! I kindly ask you not to spread false information in Wikipedia. By the way. One thing what I appreciate in this great page is the fact that everything is recorded. You claimed that [21] was an "edit contrary to long-standing consensus". Though it actually was itself reverting an edit contrary to long-standing consensus. [22] I don't know about you but six days is not definitely a long standing consensus on a page like this. HunajaOtso (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HunajaOtso. I don't believe it is "false information". I think it's debateable. I have posted a request at your own Talk Page. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a man who can stand behind his words. Show me clear evidence how the Ukrainian spelling is a long-standing consensus if it was added only a few days ago and the person who added it was just banned. I don't like you spreading false information here about long-standing consensus's. HunajaOtso (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you meant that spelling Sergei Prokofiev name in Ukrainian was "false information". I'll kindly request again that you show me where a long standing consensus to exclude this spelling is recorded. You might also want to inform User:McSqueegee. In that way, any future edit wars can be avoided? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! Usually I create these in draft first, but I thought this would be a quick stub. There's a bit more there than I originally thought, so this can probably at least make "start" status, I'll significantly add to it this weekend, using the book sources. If you're interested, would you like to check some of the regular 'net sources such as allmusic, etc? Thanks, and happy editing! 78.26(spin me / revolutions)12:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I've been known to upload copyrighted material to youtube. Old records. The companies who own the material are generally happy to have me do it, they get free revenue for recordings they have neglected/forgotten for 30, 40, 100 years, and I've done all the work for them. Ironically, the only complaints I have had for my youtube videos is from people who are truly infringing on the copyright owners, claiming they own recordings they have no right to. That said, I'd never link to them from here, Wikipedia policy on media copyrights is too arcane/fluid/confusing, largely in part because of the inevitable international scope of the place, plus U.S. law on pre-1972 sound recordings is indecipherable. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)13:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, is the problem that the link to the YouTube clip is being hosted by Wikipedia's servers in Florida? Or is it the actual geographic location of the YouTube sever hosting that particular clip when it plays at YouTube? Or perhaps something else? And of course, unless I try and play that clip in another, I don't know it's "unavailable" there anyway and thus not a copyright violation. I am genuinely surprised, in this day and age of internet dynamics, that anyone really cares too much, especially on Wikipedia Talk pages. Hardly the cutting edge of music and video piracy? The notion that we "shouldn't allow access" for readers and fellow editors to YouTube material is somewhat quaint, isn't it. But rules are rules, and policy is policy, etc. Perhaps one day we'll get "fair use" for timed extracts of videos, like we currently have for music recording excerpts? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look Fram - yes, all the links now removed (twice over, in fact). Happy now?
and Ramblo - yes, now we can really ignore each other (as if you'd ever follow me around), eh?"chortle, chortle" [please remember not to insert any obscure YouTube video link here]
Martinevans123! I'm sorry if I insulted you in any way shape or form. I don't know anything about you or about about this particular case or anything -- it was just matter of "X did such-and-such" and me being like "OK then if X is off the reservation do such-and-so rather than this-and-that". You were just serving as anonymous random example for my purposes.
OK? Sorry!
It occurs to me that "off the reservation" might be racist (not sure -- I don't know where it comes from), so I should probably keep my cotton-pickin' hands off of it (we used to say that too). So not a good day for me.
I'm really sorry. I don't know anything about you, but it's been vouchsafed that you're a productive editor, and thank you for your contributions and all you do. Herostratus (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Old habits die hard, n'est ce pas? Yes, I felt I was being made an example of there. But I think someone may have set you up. In ten years of editing I don't think anyone has ever had the simple good manners to say sorry to me. It's a word that ought be to used quite a bit more. The irony is that no apologies are really needed from you. Re-reading what you wrote, I see that no animosity whatsoever was intended. Your kind words are much appreciated. Thanks so much for being polite. You're a real hero. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, everything is all Sir Garnet then. In the manner of friendship and reconciliation, here is a picture of a mongoose for you to look at, on the assumption that you like to look at pictures of mongooses. If not, just ignore the picture. Herostratus (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Someone might have dropped one of these on your talk page before, I don't know. (I'm pretty sure I never did....) The name has strange but not unpleasant connotations, at least to me, but I do think, per WP:ENGVAR, that there should be a "Humour" version. Anyway, here it is, for what it's worth, not very pretty and sadly silent, but try to imagine it vibrating along with a distant song of your choice (in the public domain, of course). Have a good weekend. RivertorchFIREWATER22:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK let's buzz. Martin, please keep some distance from TRM. Plenty of others appreciate your humor more. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a perfectly well-constructed table to me. Regrettably, I've had to spend several hours removing your blatantly risky Hammersmith Odeon link (although it did have a great vibe and some very neat (hats) going on). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Softlavender (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Petites Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
. Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Hacking incident that arose from this plane shootdown incident. Mamasanju (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. We hope (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
_01.jpg)
![[9]](http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/reviews/190/1210847724_1.jpg){kind=link}
You are very humorous!!! UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) (My Contribs) 17:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)