User talk:Martin of Sheffield/Archive 6

The Cloggies

Moving clog dance to clog dancing (redirect) was totally unnecessary and left me confused for a moment. It would have been perfectly possible to request a direct move. But in any case I disagree with any move. The substantive articles are at clog dance (British) and clogging and there are good hat notes and a good disambiguation page. If you really think a move is useful, propose it at talk:clog dance (British) and wait for consensus. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

At the start of this afternoon there were four closely related pages: clog dance, clog-dance, clog dancing and clog-dancing. All were originally redirects to clogging. Following discussion on talk:clogging I had split clogging into a number of parts: clog dance (British), Klompendansen and the original clogging which was reduced in size to refer to the North American style (which doesn't necessarily involve clogs). To link them together I changed the redirect clog-dancing to be a stub/disambiguation page, with the aim of subsequently expanding it. user:Richerman writing on talk:clogging pointed out that it would have been better to have used clog dance as the common page since most of the other pages used the "dance" rather than "dancing" form.

After thinking about it for a while I tried to perform the relevant moves. WP:MOR imples that a redirect can be overwritten, but only if it has just a single history line. Since clog dance had been redirected from clogging to clog dancing, I knew I wouldn't be able to overwrite that. I therefore moved clog dance out of the way - tagging it with "(redirect)" was purely temporary. I tried to move clog dancing to clog dance, but the system refused, and that is when I asked for help. If I had have succeeded, I would have moved the "clog dance (redirect)" to "clog dancing" and would have effectively just swapped clog dance and clog dancing.

Thanks for your complements on the articles.

I have proposed the move as you request.

How long do we need to wait for consensus? No-one has objected yet. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@RHaworth: Hi, it's over a week now and no-one has voiced any opposition. Indeed, apart from your support the discussion has been as silent as the tomb. May we now take that as consensus has been reached? I'd like to get on with the articles once this has been resolved. Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Clem Rutter (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@RHaworth:No-one has added anything to the discussion for nearly four weeks. How much longer do we need to wait to establish consensus for the move? I realise that admins are not meant to override each other, but if you are too busy right now would you be offended if I asked another admin to deal with this? Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There’s a name for that …

Hello, Martin of Sheffield! Regarding your “cynical” comment at the religion-in-infoboxes RfC, see Sayre's law.—Odysseus1479 02:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I learnt that "law" from my late Dad c. 1974 when Cleveland (or was it Middlesbrough) council really did debate a thankyou token for the retiring mayor for half a day, and passed a multimillion scheme (I can't by now recall what) "on the nod". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Simon Scarrow

Dear Martin, No disrespect but what I added to my page was an accurate statement. However, if this IS wikipaedia policy then so be it.

Simon

Simon (I'm assuming you are Simon Scarrow), Wiki has to be careful to maintain a balance and to avoid possible litigation. Clearly I have absolutely no knowledge of, nor opinion of, your personal circumstances. What appears to an outsider is an unsourced personal attack. Were you able to cite a published, reliable, reference such as a newspaper or a biography then you could include details. Were there existing details about your marriage, prefixing "wife" with "ex-" or "separated" would be as far as it would be reasonable to go. To be strictly accurate, the page in question is not your page, but a page about you - your only additional rights are to insist on the removal of incorrect or unsourced information.

On a personal note, I'm sorry to hear of your troubles. I have enjoyed your books from "Under the Eagle" onwards, I'm looking forward to the release of "Britannia" in paperback. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet

User:Wild_man651 has been persistently vandalising the New Deal page. The account has only been used for 6 edits, all of which were disruptive. One in particular was interesting: [1]. Today a new user has appeared (user:TheFDSAMan) who has made only one edit: [2] which seems to be substantially the same. I'm not sure that this reaches the required standard for a sock puppet investigation but I would appreciate an administrator's opinion. Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I reckon it's a DUCK. Blocked the sock, given the master a final warning. I don't think an SPI is needed unless there is more trouble - keep an eye on the article. JohnCD (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

How do you do that?

Can you send a link to explanation of how to do this [[3]]

thanksjuanTamad (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Juan,

I assume you are referring to the changes I made (btw you link only points to initial creation). There were three main changes:

1. Use the name= parameter to collect identical references together
2. Fix the incorrect use of a pipe
3. Fix the layout.

The <ref> ... </ref> syntax has the facility to add a name parameter, see WP:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations. For everyone's sanity it is important that there is only one fully defined reference for a given name, the others use the short form to link to the first definition. It is usual to make the full definition the first instance. What I did in the present case is:

<ref name=SitRep>{{Citation ... }}</ref>

this made the first reference and set up the name. I then changed the second instance to:

<ref name=SitRep />

which is a lot shorter. The software knew to simply link the second citation to the first and not to repeat all the details.

The incorrect use of a pipe in the title is what brought me to the article. I just changed it to a colon, which is how it would appear in print. Having a pipe causes WikiMedia to try to interpret "Yellow Fever ..." as another parameter from "|title=...".

Finally, to sort out the layout I simply moved the reference inside the graphic definition. Having it outside meant that it was interpreted as part of the main text and so was moved to a text position rather than adjacent to the graphic:

[[File ... 2016.]]<ref> ... </ref>

changed to

[[File ... 2016.<ref name=SitRep />]]

I hope that answers your question, if not please ask more - we all had to learn at some time. :) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Central Council of Church Bell Ringers

Someone else has proposed this page for speedy deletion. I thought you should know. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Flowering plant

Re: this - they actually do reference the same publication, just expressed in different ways. DuncanHill (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

HI, I can see that they are the same journal, but one URL ends in "/full", the other in "/abstract". One has volume and page information, the other does not. Ergo, they are not identical. Not being a botanist I thought I had best leave them alone - all I'm doing is getting rid of some error messages. If you want them to be brought together only one should have the full citation, the other needs to have <ref name="apgiv" /> and no citation. Alternatively (and it is a large task on a mature page) seek consensus to change to a bibliography which doesn't contain page numbers and a short form reference which has the page number. See Subhas Chandra Bose for an example. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake

I pondered about reverting the edit regarding Earthquake and earthquake on Washington National Cathedral, and I resisted doing so because Earthquake was preceded by a year, so the "2011 Earthquake" is possibly a proper noun like the Great Flood of 1862 or the Fire of Moscow (1812). Wikipedia editors have not been consistent (are we ever?) see 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the other dated earthquake events, so it seems fires and floods can be capitalised but not earthquakes.... Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm consistent (some of the time) - it's the world that isn't! :-) More seriously though, I see your point, but I think the key thing is that the "Great Flood" is called that it is not "The flood of 1862". Bit of angels on the head of a pin though. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Screw compressor animation

Hi Martin,

Because you liked my Roots blower animation, I thought you might be interested in my animation of a screw compressor which I've put at the top of the relevant page. I've so far only done a quick low-res render, but I'll start the full-scale render tonight - should be done in a week or so.

Cheers --Slashme (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that the Roots animation made the operation much clearer, and that is after all the whole point of Wiki. The rotary-screw needs to be in higher res, as you mention, the small image doesn't help and detail isn't clear in full screen low res. I do like the way the model can is rotated to illustrate what happens. Your work is valuable and well worth thanking you for.

Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I've just uploaded a higher-resolution version that also shows the "gas" exiting the compressor. I want to expand it a bit, though, because at the moment the intake isn't really clear, and it could do with more detail on how the compressor is connected to pipework. --Slashme (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Ulpia Severina into List of queens regnant. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I have been moving material within List of queens regnant to try and tidy it up (see Talk:List_of_queens_regnant#Major_reorganisation for the discussion before I started). The material in question was moved up the page and grouped differently, see this change but was otherwise not edited. I suspect that this old edit is one that concerns you, but it was by user:LonguevilleConti (not me) at 15:30, 6 March 2014. Hope that helps you track down the real miscreant! Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see ...

User talk:Jimbo Wales regarding using the Dewey Decimal System to classify articles. It may be of interest to you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on this - I am interested. I've replied on the unprotected page due to firewall problems. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I copied it to the regular talk page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Union Jack/Union Flag

This edit is in the 'Terminology' section which is perfectly logical and correct. There appear to be those determined to block any contributions that discuss the correct name of the flag if these contributions (such as mine) reinforce the Union Jack name. The idea that the flag should only be called such when flown from a jack-staff of a naval ship has been debunked as a modern idea - and yet many contributors have posted on this page evidence to support that. I am posting evidence to support the Union Jack name as correct, both historically, ;egally and in common usage WHEREVER it is flown - on land or at sea. The fact that such a significant figure as Winston Churchill called it the Union Jack back in 1899 supports this. Those people resolutely deleting my edits are I suspect supporters of the 'only called Union Jack when flown at sea' idea and do not like my proof that this is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumpaintitblack (talk • contribs) 08:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You are in serious danger of being regarded as edit warring. Your account only seems to exist to push your view about the name of the flag. I attempted a compromise between your (and only your) opinion and those of at least three other editors but you have persistently ignored changes. Please cease your disruptive editing forthwith. I will copy this notice to your talk page as a warning, be aware that others may decide to add their comments or take this further. I will not be taking any further actions for a few days to avoid edit warring, I suggest you do likewise for the good of the encyclopaedia. Please also ensure you sign comments on a talk page by using four tildes(~~~~). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Martin of Sheffield, mine is not disruptive editing but adding useful information to this article. It is your obsessive deleting of my innocent edit which is vandalism and 'edit warring'. I am not the one warring - you are. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it can be edited by anyone. I wish to make the point (quite reasonably) that Winston Churchill called the flag the Union Jack. That is an important point in the context of the terminology used regarding the flag. That is hardly vandalism! You do not own Wikipedia and yet you are behaving as if you do. Your intemperate language, threats and general abuse are not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumpaintitblack (talk • contribs) 09:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I happen to be of the same mind as you, but I take issue with the way you're trying to get the point across. What makes your editing disruptive is that you have repeated the same changes, after other editors have given cause to revert them, without addressing the issues we have raised. While it's not exactly vandalism, it pushes the limits of the policy on edit warring and our community norms known as the BOLD. It gave the impression that you are here to co-opt Wikipedia to promote your interpretation of the facts, rather than engage in a collaborative project to create an objective reference work, which gets everyone's hackles up. True, you did address the first issue raised, which was the lack of sources, and I'm grateful to you for providing those links. I thought the Churchill letter was relevant enough to include in the article, as it indicates a historical view of the meaning and symbolism of the flag. However, Churchill made no overt remark as to the proper terminology, and from one letter, we can't fairly conclude he used "jack" to the exclusion of "flag", so it doesn't belong in the "terminology" section.

The Union Jack Club website makes no statement as to proper terminology whatsoever, so inferring such a position from the club's name alone is considered original research and out of scope for this encyclopedia. (However, were you to find a reliable, published source that made this same conclusion, then we could include it!)

As it stands today, I think the Union Jack article does a pretty good job explaining that the idea about "jack" being appropriate only on a jackstaff at sea is, despite its popularity, a 20th century phenomenon and not correct in the broader historical context. We have sufficient sources to back this up, and stretching conclusions from incidental sources doesn't really make the case stronger, since the current sources already provide better evidence.

For further discussion of Wikipedia community policies, guidelines and norms, I'd be happy to talk with you here, on your talk page, or on my talk page. If you would like to discuss the flag itself, I invite you to start a new section at Talk:Union Jack. Ibadibam (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• I had forsworn raising to your bait in the interests of the encyclopedia, but since you are writing on my talk page I shall respond inline.

I note that on a message to another editor about my edit to the Union Jack page (ganging up on me??) you say to this other person - ".... is Platinumpaintblack now going to argue that the name of the US flag is also to be changed?"

• Ganging up? I assume that must have been an attempt at humour, if not you need to control your paranoia.

Your point is illogical as I am not proposing any change to the name of the United Kingdom flag. It has two valid names - Union Jack and Union Flag. There has never been an Act of Parliament to confirm an ‘official’ name and both names are interchangeable.

• This is a circular argument: "I believe X, therefore X and Y are equal, therefore I'm not changing X to Y". Your claim that a flag and a jack are the same is wrong (see Pepys diary for 1667 quoted in the OED and cited on the talk page), therefore you are trying to use an old and well established nickname for the Union Flag. No problem, until you them attempt to change all references from the formal name to the nickname in an encyclopedia.

The debate – acknowledged on the Union Jack page – is whether one name is more valid than the other. Some claim that Union Flag is the ‘official’ name whereas Union Jack is a colloquial or slang name. This notion is incorrect.

Some people claim - erroneously - that the name Union Jack should only be used when the flag is flown at sea from a jack-staff. This idea has taken hold very firmly in many peoples' minds - but it is a falsehood, a modern myth.

• It probably depends upon your interpretation of the word "modern". If you mean modern as against medieval then you are correct, but if you mean modern as in the last few decades then you are off by not far short of four centuries. More recently (1913) the Admiralty in a formal publication stated 'A Jack is a Flag to be flown only on the "Jack" Staff', is this "modern" in your eyes?

As proven by the BBC when in the 13th October 2013 they stated on the Radio 4 News "According to The Flag Institute which has carried out legal and historical research there has never been a definitive pronouncement on the correct title. The Institute's experts say that in the absence of any specific designation of a name both Union Flag and Union Jack may validly be used. The news may come as a shock to those who are convinced that it is a Union Jack only if it's flown by The Royal Navy. But the general public who almost universally refer to it as the Union Jack can carry on doing so in the knowledge that they have been right all along." https://www.youtube.com/edit?video_id=LZHkmvOKPx0

• The BBC proved nothing. They reported one one vexillologist's opinion.

You may not agree with my post but it is valid, proven by a reliable source and relevant to the debate about the correct terminology for the name of the flag of the UK.

• I don't, it isn't and it hasn't been. Repeated assertions will not change facts.

You need to look also at the page on The Flag Institute's website - http://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british-flags/the-union-jack-or-the-union-flag/

"It is often stated that the Union Flag should only be described as the Union Jack when flown in the bows of a warship, but this is a relatively recent idea. From early in its life the Admiralty itself frequently referred to the flag as the Union Jack, whatever its use" - indeed Winston Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty as well as the Prime Minister and so his use of the name Union Jack rather than Union Flag is telling - hence I introduced the point into the Union Jack page.

• The flag Institute is a private organisation, not an arm of government. You Keep citing Sir Winston, but appear not to have noticed that in 1899 he was neither a Lord of the Admiralty, nor Prime Minister; in fact he was a 25 year old subaltern and later in the year war correspondent. The letter (which is unsourced) was a private letter to his mum in which he makes a sarcastic off-the-cuff comment about her magazine. I certainly wouldn't want private family comments quoted as representative of my considered opinion 40 years later!

It is you who has been vandalizing my entirely correct, accurate and proven point and aggressively editing out something that you disagree with. Your opinion is not a valid reason to edit someone else's original contributions - especially when you opinion is demonstrably wrong as I have proven here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumpaintitblack (talk • contribs) 10:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I actually only reverted once, then attempted to find a compromise. That is not "aggressive editing". When this started to look like an edit war I stepped back and suggested you did likewise. You did not and have not taken up the request by others to take this to the article's talk page, instead you persistently replace the same paragraph back ignoring all comments. Finally, please start signing your edits. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I welcome both of you to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Union Jack#Churchill on the flag, so that we can separate the content discussion from the procedural one. Ibadibam (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)