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]
... 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]
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]
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]
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]
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 [6]. 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]
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 [9] was an "edit contrary to long-standing consensus". Though it actually was itself reverting an edit contrary to long-standing consensus. [10] 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]
FWIW -- you may know this but I didn't -- you can specify a media file to play only a section, like this:
Of course you have to download (a non-copyvio) file from YouTube and then upload it here. This plays the video clip from 250 seconds to 361 seconds, specifying a short except that would probably qualify for fair use in the article. Whether this would fly for hosting the file though... I don't know, as a reader can access the full file if she goes "behind the scenes". Probably not, although you could try to make a case. Herostratus (talk) 18:26, 12 May 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]
Hi Martin,
Any idea if there is a proper name for sentences like "Are you as bored as I am?" which can be read backwards with a (kind of) reversed meaning, in this case, "Am I as bored as you are?" I thought I might find it in the 'See also' section of Antimetabole or related pages, but apparently not. The sentence seems to be doing the rounds on social media, but it can't be the only example of this type of structure. Thanks in advance! JezGrove (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Martin, sorry to be s-l-o-w replying. It seems to be a word or word-by-word palindrome. Another example is "First ladies rule the State and state the rule: ladies first". All the best! JezGrove (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Walt Kelly (or his publisher) put out a songbook, Songs of the Pogo – illustrated of course with drawings of Pogo characters – sometime in the late '50s, I think. Very charming. Sca (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still a great article, Gerda. I'd say Francis was much more of an expert there than I could ever hope to be. I see some sound clips there already from Carl Flisch. This looks rather good, but I'm not 100% totally legally sure that it's copyright free. So I'll be getting another lecture from Fram soon, I expect. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Francis made me drop it. In two weeks, he can go for FA with it, - I wouldn't mind. An article that misses the most detailed source (because of copyright vio allegations that the best source checkers didn't see) and places labels before performers is nothing I want my name associated with. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't have this but copyright and other tags. Where else to have a link to a translation in Chinese, and mentioning of who played violin in which recording? Every other article on a Bach cantata (that I know) has the information, at least as an external link. The discussion is on the RS noticeboard (linked on the bottom of the cantata talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope that Theresa May's plan to replace free school dinners for Year 1-3 school children with a hash breakfast isn't an omen for the likely outcome of our upcoming EU negotiations… And do her manifesto costings take into account the number of people who won't remember to pay the dementia tax? Still, when the Tories finally rebel against May in the distant future, perhaps the podium slogan she keeps standing behind — 'Forward To-get-her' — might come in useful! JezGrove (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! It's not a U-turn – that's a "fake claim" (thanks, Donald!) I simply meant that under my strong and stable leadership there will be a cap on social care costs, er... even though I ruled one out, which I am going to demonstrate by putting it out for consultation. And I'll find that £8bn somewhere - maybe from higher taxes, but I'm going to exercise my mighty leadership by waiting for Matthew Taylor's report to come in first. And then I'll check down the back of the sofa. But, whatever you do, trust strong and stable Theresa and not weak and wobbly Corbyn - never trust a Jezza! Or the Trotskyist front page of The Times – "Pensioners to pay for May's social care U-turn"…? what Leftist propaganda! JezGrove (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On 19 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Koschat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1970, Austrian Post issued a commemorative postage stamp honoring the composer and bass singer Thomas Koschat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Koschat. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Koschat), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Maybe T can just be replaced with a tape-loop of "Strong and stable leadership" and "I'm very clear that". Beep • Ping • Blurp. At least that way she wouldn't have to actually interact with humans. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is unfair Martin. I take that back. As I have said many times before, Mrs May can always come and live in my bathroom. She never replies to my emails, which has I would argue, caused her present slight problem. She never followed my advice to wear a Teletubbies costume during the campaign, and sort of gurgle. This I feel was a decisive mistake. Also she rather sharply rejected operation beard where I advocated her growing one and undertaking false flag rallies where she would only speak in Basque. Now I fear it is too late. The bouncy Scottish tory woman who seemed to do rather well will be the next Prime minister. She did not use the term strong and stable once. No one ever listens to me, except that woman at the co-op. Sigh. Irondome (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now bed for a bit. I watched that comic opera all bloody night. I must be effing mad. At least i'm well pissed now, which is the only way to get through election nights, as my nan said once. I shall see you later me old mucker. I assume Mrs M will do me the common courtesy of not resigning till I wake up and belch at the T.V. Simon Irondome (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don´t change bio content as we are Official Steve Norman team and don´t like current bio. We are working on a new biography and pics. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loregraphic (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Pasquale Cerza? You're in an edit war. Just like the anon IP editor before you. You need to explain, at Talk:Steve Norman, to the other four editors who have reverted you, what you're attempting to do. Thank you! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you are a major contributor to the Frome Hoard I wanted to ask if there is anything else you think needs to be done to the article to ensure it meets the Good article criteria? Do you think a GA nomination would be appropriate? If there are any issues I would be happy to try to address them - perhaps we could discuss on the article talk page?— Rodtalk14:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say anything about that in the MOS:ALBUMS. I guess if you wanted to clarify, you could post on the talk page. It's probably not a big deal. I aim for consistency across all articles though. --Jennica✿ / talk08:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent job on contextualizing the ridiculous claim that Dubliners, without any hint of homophobia, used non-offensive homophobic slurs in an entirely innocent way. It was better than actually entering into an edit war with the troll who claimed that it was supposed to be innocent in the first place. AnthroMimus (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, long time no 'see'. Of course, the Irish can't claim to have a monopoly on 'witty' nicknames for local works of art - after all, the Angel of the North is known locally as the Gateshead Flasher. Cheers! JezGrove (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that. I've raised a discussion thread over at The Knoxville Girl. I was curious about the harmonic/ rhythmic structure of that Albion Band Battle of the Field song. As you may know, there is simply no info at all on the original vinyl album sleeve and no notes: [14] This source gives it as Roud 263, which is "The Cruel Miller" (Laws P35)"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[[16]] if people would have paid more attention to that then there would have been no need to make expensively produced bulk-tea making documentaries if you ask me me old china. Irondome (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin. I saw your edit summary here and I assure you I did look. Well done for replacing the source with one which was not garbage. See WP:BDP for further info. --John (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... around under top 400 and storming in at 400 (Wikipedians ranked by number of edits).
BTW do you know where James Dean Bradfield was born? An unregistered editor removed him from Pontypool, but his page has not been updated. The sources are unclear. He may have been born in Tredegar, Pontllanfraith, or Pontypool... Evans123 the Death (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Last thing I remember, I was running for the door. I had to find the passage back to the place I was before. "Relax" said the night man, 'We are programmed to receive. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave!' Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 15:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Robbo, magical. A neighbour who I went to school with has a vineyard at Parva Farm. And I have relations who still breed lambs at Builth. The Wye is such a special river. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you enjoyed it - think I'll give it another watch before it runs out on Thursday early morning. The Wye and Afon Lwyd are the rivers of my childhood (and the Usk to a lesser extent). I recently found out the Afon Lwyd was still effectively an open sewer until the 1950s, let alone the industrial waste... Quite an interesting tale of rivalries between different urban councils and Monmouthshire County Council. Take a look at pages 129 to 134 from here (health report for Monmouthshire for 1937) for an example of bureaucratic skullduggery! The Wellcome Institute has paid for the digitisation of a whole load of these reports for British counties. They are normally a bit drier than the example given - the medical officer David Rocyn-Jones was pretty exasperated I think. The reports do reveal a lot of social history if look at them from the 1900s to the 1980s (treatment of tuberculosis, unmarried mothers, clean air acts, smoking etc). Cheers Robevans123 (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bulmore Lido! Blast from the past - such a shame that it's gone. I spent a happy day sitting on Caerleon Bridge in 1976 measuring the height of the water every 15 minutes. I was working for Welsh Water in Caerleon at the time. We stayed hydrated with supplies from the Ship Inn... Robevans123 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, I didn't know how else to contact. I was the user who edited Fred West cause of death. I did it because I recently found out a very good friend of mine was deputy coroner on West's death. I've never edited before so please bare with me! T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.130 (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "died in the submerged vehicle" makes it pretty obvious that she drowned, but the article should have said so if that's what the coroner ruled. Sca (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As in "died in a submerged vehicle, that was full of air, as a result of head injuries...."? etc. etc., One can make an educated guess, based on the other circumstances. But I would have thought if there was one single fact that needed to be in that article it would be the coroner's ruling. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My memory, created by LouisAlain, with reviews added by Cg2p0B0u8m, and now you copy-edited, thank you! - Collaboration as I like it! - Project opera has a rule: when the piece has an article, no link for the composer (to avoid a sea of blue) - and it's almost an opera ;) - Look at some external links for images of the Frankfurt event, - the stage director did the opening of the Barcelona Olympics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Adding any author link to an adjacent linked work is usually overlink. Just thought I'd try and sneak one in, as he is notable, obviously! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Tomorrow a singer who sang two wonderful Brahms songs for voice, viola and piano, only to find out: no article yet, not even in German. The first written as a wedding present for Joseph Joachim and his alto wife, the second much later to repair the marriage (which didn't work). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's really a lovely piece. Reminds me, albeit very slightly, of Gregorian chants. Have you ever been into those? I really love them; not sure if you'd like, but give a listen if you get a chance. I'll see if I can find a link. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We sang the Requiem, and we regularly do four-part psalm recitation like that, just in German. - by this (talk discussion) I meant: what to you think about a revert like vandalism? - We are supposed to assume good faith, but it looks like bait to me, which I will not take ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the link just brings me to the top of talk page. If you mean the infobox discussion, I don't know the history there and would prefer not to get into it. Would rather talk music and art :) Kafka Liz (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The word infobox - even if some tell you otherwise - is nothing to be afraid of. I made one for that Requiem, as I saw them for Mozart, Verdi, Reger, - and could have added Rutter and probably others. It was reverted by an IP without an edit summary, as if it was vandalism. Some users may actually think any infobox is vandalism, some may think one by me is, or it could be just a misclick, which is something I am also guilty of. Anyway, I am not in a position to revert even once, so went to the talk of the article and the IP, and Ceoil and here, where the nice people are ;) - Infoboxes for compositions have not been contentious, period. Bruckner symphonies had them from 2007, Mahler's from 2013. Spread that news, it's too little known. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I probably shouldn't say this, but I feel it ought be left to the discretion of the author. You can see that some articles I started have infoboxes while others do not. I feel it works in some instances and not in others. I don't really understand a need for uniformity here, and I also suggest we move this off poor Martin's talkpage. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind a revert. I mind a rollback that makes no sense, that's all. When I'm reverted with a reason, even if it's just "I don't like it", I swallow it and go to the next. - Who is the author? Many articles on musical compositions were written before {{infobox musical composition}} existed (created in 2013), which has now more than 1000 inclusions, including the Ninth Symphony and Messiah. Many of their authors are not active anymore. - I will eventually take it Duruflé's Requiem to GA, if - as Ceoil said - I get to it before I die. I did that for Fauré's which has no infobox for respect of Tim riley. - When I say "spread the news" I mean Martin also ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Won't work, I was the photographer ;) - I had the keyboard player right in front of me who switched from harspsichord to organ and back, and who played from a facsimile of the score in the performance!! - If you want to spot me, look on my user page. Photo by Gabriel Dessauer, his daughter the oboist, Ignace Michiels on her left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that on one of my userpages archived, I said which row, but am too tire to look it up. Thanks for some responses where I bite my tongue ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still plenty of photographic "gaps" in the article if you find yourself at a loose end one day! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And after the round of thanks (110 on my watchlist, which didn't include those who responded), and nourished by the soup, he can turn to what happened to my RfA question (last link in the top bottom on my talk) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you eat enough soup for a witty response to "fancy" there? Perhaps asking for one - just one - reference to content? I'd break my New Year's resolution if I did. Inspiration for wording can be found on Maritana, mostly by Voce, "By all means keep that clunky, redundant navbox sitting at the top of the article and chalk it up as a victory". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure about the meaning of sales here. I have nothing to offer ;) - I don't recall having been reverted with edit summary "ridiculous". I remember others, though, "No thanks, Gerda, this infrobox is absolutely horrendous and ugly" and "Poor old Cello Concerto! Why inflict an idiot box on this when the other major works escape?" - For some reason, these amuse me more than "ridiculous". What a dangerous thing I just said? A friend was taken to ANI for being amused having fun, - he said Thank you, link just above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martinevans,
I think of you as being the Earl Hines [& much else] Wiki guru ....
Summat-funny seems to have happened to the Biog section of Earl Hines: 'Early Life' now reads, "Later, Hines said that he was playing piano around Pittsburgh "before the word 'jazz' was even invented".[14] and $15 a week.[15][16] " - but if you then click on edit ... it all seems hunkier-than-dory.
Morning Martin, a couple of things. Sources 9/10 in the above are both dead. Do you have any updated links for the grave, as it's not mentioned in anything I've got? I hope my updating has retained all the earlier information. Re. the Dingestow Court fish, it is indeed £50, but Bradney, unsurprisingly given he was writing early last century, gives it thus, 50l. Would you like me to change it? I can see it may be confusing. Lastly, any idea how on earth the Polish article on St Martin's is so long? Who would have thought its fame would have spread so far. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 9 & 10 fixed (slight changes in pathnames) - but they only say Gill farmed and lived near Abergavenny. He is buried there. See this photo album - 3rd on top row. It's a good set of photos but they have full rights reserved... Which is a shame as I think Cold War Warrior on epernity is the same person as Jaggery on Geograph (where he adds freely available images). You could use this link from the Megalithic Portal. Interestingly, Gill left £2,000 to the Friends of the Friendless Churches Society and his funeral service was at St Bridget's, Skenthrith.
Yes, Polish does have a lot of crazy accents! Many thanks for fixing those links, Rob. Yes, Gill's gravestone would make a good addition, I think. Perhaps the megalithic.co.uk link could be used as a reference for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1, yes I'd put £, or perhaps just a link to pounds. It looks more odd to me because it's at the end of the sentence, I think. There might well be some guideline for this over at WP:MOS, but I hesitate to ask sometimes, fearing a wall-of-text-ten-feet-deep for the slightest little departure from the prescribed house style for any jot and tittle. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Fortunately, The Hundred of Raglan is the one Bradney I do have. Really must try and get the others but the 1990s reprints have been out-of-print for years, and the prices for the originals are shocking. Anyways, now corrected. KJP1 (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me that user sanctions would be more fun if we styled them after Play Your Cards Right. "So, we're looking at a three-month block, do the community think we should go higher or lower? ..... lower than three-months, one-month .... higher or lower? .... higher than one month ..... oooooh, you don't get anything for a pair, not in this game!"Ritchie333(talk)(cont)19:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was in a second hand shop a while back and saw a Stylophone. I asked the owner of the shop whether there was still a market for these, bearing in mind what happened with Rolf Harris and that he is on the packaging of some of them.[22] He said yes. So that's OK. And radio stations haven't stopped playing "Space Oddity" because it features a Stylophone. I've always thought of the Stylophone as a cut price version of a Clavioline, most famously heard on "Telstar (instrumental)". I've never owned one, despite seeing them on the second hand market. Will this sell on eBay? I'm watching but not bidding.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're bursting to know, it sold for £11.61, which was a bit less than I expected. However, it didn't have the 7 inch demo record, which the enthusiasts will expect (are there Rolf Harris enthusiasts these days?) Also found this YouTube video with Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile. Goodness gracious, guys and gals, the BBC is not going to be broadcasting this one again any time soon.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first video is excellent, although it has cheated a bit by using a modern guitar effects pedal to produce effects that the Stylophone can't do on its own, such as playing more than one note at a time (eg on "Iron Man"), or lowering the pitch (eg on "Satisfaction"). And he still didn't play "Telstar (instrumental)", which is an obvious choice for the Stylophone.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, and not covering Telstar was a gaff. However I think it is a useful video for demonstrating it's potential, I certainly wasn't aware that you could attach other gizmos to it. It certainly adds to it's flexibility if you have a effects pedal to hand. A great buy all in all. Irondome (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems oddly late in the season to build a beach, but maybe they've judged the weather (and the canine accumulation rate) well.
I wonder if we'll get another beach in our village? After last summer, Cwmbran's urban beach sand (Cwmbran now does everything earlier and better than Newport) ended up spread in the fields around here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I spent 10 minutes looking it over and I highly doubt it's another person. By my calculations their edit summaries don't seem to support that claim nor do they help their case get any better. Is the IP unblocked at this time? Since the block seemed to only be 31 hours I believe they would be unblocked by now ♠Dinah♠🎤11:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have now sent me on a never ending abyss of poor quality Simpsons Youtube clips, that I'm probably just going to listen to in the background anyway. TJWtalk22:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, I can't believe that Peter Hall (director) hasn't featured in 'Recent deaths' - maybe he should have been a left-handed pitcher in a minor baseball league to deserve that honour? (Also can't believe that his article needs the '(director)' clarification if it comes to that, but that's another issue). Unfortunately I'm too ignorant to be able to sort how to nominate/find and support a nomination for Recent deaths - any hints that you can give? Thanks as always - JezGrove (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a minor scandal. We're just left waiting. Obviously we can't have any room for confusion, can we. But I must admit that I visit ITN 'Recent deaths' less and less frequently these days, I'm afraid, as for me it's just a source of disappointment and frustration. Deaths are frequently nominated (quickly) by editors who seem to have no interest whatsoever in the person and proceed to make not a single edit to the article. A few others occasionally then just turn up to say "not good enough" or "unsourced", and again make no efforts to improve or just add a sprinkling of "refimprove" templates. So you'll just have to wade in and decide where the "heaps of referencing" are actually needed. I'd advise you to add a few sources where things look particularly bare and (only) then add your support for posting. But don't hold your breath, as they say. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's ironic to think that I spent a large amount of effort ensuring that people like Hall even stood a chance of being listed at RD by getting enough consensus to support a "quality-only" criterion. Do you honestly think that Hall would have been considered for inclusion for a moment before, when you had Randy from Boise and his buddies voting down his notability? Jesus, you can't please anyone, any of the time around here. And as you know, we're all volunteers, so noting that an article is shit and moving on is just fine. Alternatively, pay me to fix them, and I'll gladly engage in things I have precisely zero interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I fixed the Opera section for Hall, which had no links to operas, and no ref. RD should be renamed, because by the time that procedure passed it's not recent anymore. I saw that for Killmayer (but 6k+ views when it finally was mentioned), and again for Köhler. I am no help for the long other parts of Hall, sorry. - A while ago, I could help with Jon Vickers, but then I knew what I was writing about, and where to find the missing refs. - Our conductor recalled Killmayer, and how difficult it was to meet his high standards. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as a "thank you TRM for going to such lengths to enable such minority interest folks even a chance at RD, I'm forever indebted". You're welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Peter Hall has been a legend for a long time (his Shakespeare made it to Germany, + the Ring 100 years after Wagner died, - thus following the Jahrhundertring), and it's too bad that he didn't live long enough to see his article improved ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) No, I didn't. I said that noting "an article is shit". Nothing specific to with Hall, who, as you very well know, I nominated, because I was very surprised no-one had done it already and wanted to get it up there so people who gave a toss could do something with it. Turns out very few did give a toss. And ironically you berate me for not getting involved in something I have no interest in other than to further the quality of the encyclopedia and give minority RDs like Hall a chance by nominating it when no-one else had. Brilliant work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I do hope you get the credit, TRM. Although I had not realised the non-giving-of-tosses was already over. Martinevans123 (talk)
I am happy I started the articles on Siegfried Köhler and Killmayer when they were still alive. Can't say the same about Manfred Jung (pictured from behind when you click Jahrhundertring), whom I saw in Bayreuth. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear - who originated the shit, though? (Really sad if the RSC copied and pasted WP for its tribute to their founder.) JezGrove (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC) (Just posted a query about the er... 'overlap' to the RSC, so we'll see what they say!) JezGrove (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for working on his article. I was fortunate to be in the audience when Tantalus was performed at the Denver Center Theater. A unique experience. I particularly enjoyed David Ryall's performance. RIP Peter Hall. MarnetteD|Talk22:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Digging about I discover we have had the overlapping content since this edit of May 30, 2016, so it looks like the RSC copied from us rather than the other way around. P.S. The same stuff was copied from us by the Daily Mail and other locations online. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Diannaa, I had a nasty feeling that that was the case. It's interesting to hear what you say about what Hillbillyholiday calls the Daily Fail - when WP decided earlier this year that the Daily Mail was not a reliable source, after a discussion that he had initiated, the Mail claimed that its journalists had been banned from using WP as a source since 2014. And then earlier this week he caught them copying and pasting parts of the WP Javier Bardem article and forgetting to delete the citation numbers. And now, apparently, they're at it again … JezGrove (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For more Daily Fail / Wackypedia treats like that one, please check @ho_liday on twitter! New followers this September receive a crudely photoshopped NSFW portrait of the family member or pet of their choosing -- FREE OF CHARGE!* --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC) (* Management reserves the right to revoke offer in case of oversubscription)[reply]
Sadly, my prediction is that the immensity of the "Stage productions" section will mean that Hall will never get an appearance in ITN RD on the front page. He was just so prodigious that even a good source will not cover everything and some self-appointed policy wonk will just say "everything not sourced". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's all nicely arranged in his autography, which is a published source, no? and actually all others probably take it from there, including Wikipedia, or how come it looks so similar? - Alternatively, we could skip those lists until after the main page date, seriously. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your optimism. By all means add his autobiography wherever itfits. And then, who knows, a fair appraisal might even mean it appears tomorrow? But I've seen so many drop off list after a week that I can offer no realistic encouragement, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Without optimism, I'd probably left when my first article was deleted within minutes (or when I was labelled "battleground behavior, or when people left because I wrote "amused" in an edit summary). I do that then. Köhler is scheduled for tomorrow. - Trivia I found but did write in the article: his father was a horn player (that much I wrote) who greeted his newborn son with Siegfried's signal fanfare and named him after the very-very-hero. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank google for offering that sooner ;) - Why don't they use harv, or at least a reflist that deserves the name, instead of refs cluttering the text, and then see by author name and date if a ref is already there?
Well, but it's us, and I like it. I won't touch that corner again until someone dies about whom I personally care, - Hall was borderline. - I have a program of writing (or expanding) an article a day, and right now it's some biggies in a row, so I just didn't have the extra time to dig up sources about someones private life which possibly should not be on WP to start with. Next biggie: Der Messias, Mozart version, then Duruflé's motets. Off to rehearsal, concert soon (3 October, every year). - The article IS better, and the thousands who read it even without a RD notice (45k the day it was known) will enjoy it more, I hope. - Köhler had 8k yesterday. The soprano that he engaged is on the same Main page, - coincidence? She sang for us Jauchzet!, a good program. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made nothing personal. And I'm sure there are plenty of others who find ITN RD irrational and frustrating. I don't see that contributing to article improvements, and suggesting that processes could be improved, are exclusive alternatives. I also agree with all that Gerda has said and I'm sorry her contributions there have now also been unfairly labelled as "Nothing useful... " Editors don't actually have to "wear caps" of any kind. I'm genuinely surprised that you feel the need to be so relentlessly negative and combative. But I'll be pleased to find a suitable YouTube video for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, the bottom line is if you want to continue exercising your right as a season ticket holder for the peanut gallery, that's fine. Some of us try to exercise change. That you are "genuinely surprised" about anything is actually "genuinely surprising", and I'll remember that forever, or until I have my first stroke. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I say rejoicing was a good program? We are alive!! - I returned from rehearsal, only to find Michael Wollny needs the recordings referenced (sorry, Usernameunique, not today, not in the mood), and two prizes for a baritone needed a ref, prizes with an article. I obliged and ask forgiveness for the sarcasm in the edit summaries. I know that Hall was 50 times more worthy to be mentioned than Köhler, only we were not given 50 times the time. When I was young only contentious facts had to be referenced, even in FAs. Rejoice! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We love irony, don't we? Köhler is on for a second day, and the next one who is likely to make it is a woman whose only reported merit is to have become enormously old. But: Halleluja! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this good move here. I see no problem with it down there ... it was just giving me the screaming abdabs in the lead! Thanks and good night from an anonymous IP user of whose real identity you have no idea, we trust, 82.34.71.202 (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good Lord. I had no idea. When I use the expression I'm basically channelling Biggles(hmmmm, and I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that now, come to think of it). I had not come across it in the context of a Wretched Young Persons' Popular Music Ensemble. You learn something, comme on dit, every day! Cheers 82.34.71.202 (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The concert was good, thanks for asking. Two excellent soloists who also sang here, then Mary and the pope. The orchestra professional, - same sweet Japanese woman the concert master (for our events) from 1985, was Spatzenmesse then (the one article where I was called an infobox warrior when I restored the better version weeks later, in 2013). Mozart dropped the middle section (and then no need to repeat) in one da capo aria, - our conductor did the same for several others ;) - The one pure Mozart recitative was a revelation, - called "the Countess meets Paul". - That source: hard to read even for me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, I had no idea, sorry. It's odd how just seeing a photo of someone for the first time can make one realise they're just another person, very like oneself. Even when it's "too late". Don't feel guilty Gerda, after all no-one knows. But yes, what a strange place this sometimes is. I'm just looking forward to my eventual debrief session with Jimbo. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2014 was the year of that strange incident which was on Jimbo's talk (and ANI), (my) quote: "Death is fact.", and the last time I thought of him was also that year, quoted later (if we don't count an April Fool comment in 2015 to raise clicks for a bird's TFA. - "Looking forward" - your edit summary - was exactly what I needed to hear this morning, thank you! - Would you look at the neglected PR, perhaps? Not for FA or GA, just to improve before Reformation Day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that every other reference in the rest of the article makes reference to the fact that she was an actress on Coronation Street to include three additional references here that does not add any new information is pointless.
Graemec2 (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. Makes perfect sense, thanks. I see that "Our Vera" has just managed to slip onto the front page, despite the lack of sources for the Filmography. Sometimes I think those Main page stalwarts would rather "die of thirst" than permit the convenience of a Main page link to a partially unsourced article. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We share, of course, and I agree. - Worse than those dying and we notice are they whose article you created and you missed it on your watchlist when they died, and those who died and you noticed you should have written their article when they were alive. Look for Manfred Jung here. You see that I grab every chance to show the image of the woman who can't believe what she has to see, - we see Jung from behind, in the process of getting married to another woman, and not recognizing his first wife, nor remembering that he is married. Usually situations on WP are less dramatic, but at times her expression was mine, - see Götterdämmerung (and still not archived). - Less image but good expression : Love's Labour's Lost. - But not in Huber's case, - that was good collaboration as I like it. - I wonder what you say about the top image and its placement in the Bach composition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good result. More readers may get to discover and promote his musical legacy. It's good that Francis is always helping so much over there. I do miss Billy! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Clevor Trever.ogg. 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).
Slim Whitman article, yes sorry that i didn't explain it better, it is not actually repetitive as his name was Ottis Dewey Whitman , but he was born as Otis Dewey Whitman, note the use of two "t"s in the name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.66.60 (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the opening sentence you have constructed is a bit clumsy:
Ottis Dewey "Slim" Whitman (January 20, 1923 – June 19, 2013), born as Otis Dewey Whitman, (note the one T in birth name) was an American country music and ..."
I'm also struggling to find a source for any of those names in the article. I've opened a thread at the Talk page over there. Please contribute your argument(s) there? This source says he was born "Ottis Dewey Whitman Jr". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Da Duh Dah.ogg. 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).
Is copyright-protected. So I can guarantee that it won't appear in any articles, living or deceased. (Another for the ever-expanding list of sentences I never thought I'd write. Also dear God what happens when my security clearance is up for review?)
Don't listen to google translate ;) - follow link to a decent translation from the lead. "surrounded" translates the "umgeben". You are not "surrounded from" nor (7th stanza) "sheltered from" (actually that would mean almost the opposite) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(dc) Nice image, but I don't want it there, you guessed right, because Bach and Luther talking to each other is so -- no words, and it looks like an article about a stained-glass window. No Bach, right (on the only one we have he looks 25 years too old), but it could be Luther as the hymn writer, as in other chorale cantatas, such as Wer nur den lieben Gott läßt walten, BWV 93, and it could be in the infobox, instead of above it.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think that's a very attractive image, even if the composition is fanciful. Many article writers would be very jealous of such a strong and relevant image. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC) there's a prize for the first Luther pun, Ser Amantio! [reply]
Unfortunately, the guidelines about an image of {{infobox opera}} demand simply "An illustrative image. This can be the composer (preferably close to the time of the composition), a scene from the opera, a depiction of one or more of its characters, a singer depicted in one of the opera's roles, a poster, the title page or cover of the libretto, etc. Avoid images with a large vertical dimension in relation to their width, as this can make the infobox excessively long and interfere with the page layout." The imagined image would not be "of the composer" which assumes a contemporary image to present an easy identification of the style of a period, and none of the other recommended choices. Plus, it's extremely long, so even if it was a good image per topic, it should not be in the position, for page layout consideration. - Why an image that is irrelevant and against page layout, when there are relevant choices that go with layout clarity. Just because it's colourful? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to everyone reading the article on Nika that Hungary and Pannonia are semiequivalent. The article then goes on to say there is a species member of lepidoptera named pannonica. We know that Pannonica aproximates Hungary but not everyone else reading it would. The article also refers to Rozsika as a baroness when she did not have that title until after she was married. The word Edle is a noble title but it is not as high in precedence as Baron. The titles Ritter and Edle are comparable with Baronet.RichardBond (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard. Thanks for your note here about Pannonica de Koenigswarter. I'm quite sure there are very many things that not "everyone" will know when reading any article. I must admit when I myself saw the sentence with "Eastern Europe's Pannonian plain", I didn't know exactly where the plain was. That deficiency was remedied by just clicking on the link. The earlier reference to her mother the "Hungarian baroness" then made sense. I just thought a geographical explanation inserted right there was unnecessary and a bit clumsy. I really don't think it adds to an understanding of Nica's personal life and doesn't add in general to a biog article like this. I think we can assume that if someone doesn't know something they will just click on a link - that's why we have them? But I'm quite happy to get other editor's views on the article Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin. I'm sorry I had to revert your addition there. We would need the very finest sources and a strong consensus to include that particular tidbit. Are you aware that WP:ARBBLP emphasises and clarifies not reverting at all for material that has been removed on BLP grounds? If not, you probably should be. --John (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Your edit summary was "unsourced". My addition?? That particular "tidbit" had been there for over 11 years. The source has simply stopped working - I updated it so that we could at least see where it came from. I'm not sure it's possible to make a BLP judgement without seeing the quality of the source? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Running to that admin and having them place that boilerplate on my talk page, is hiding behind an admin, yes. You were unprepared to engage in a constructive discussion> Instead you simply started going: "Admin. Admin. Help. I need to scare this user off. They are doing something I don't like. I want to hide behind rules and frighten them off from changing precious edits." Give it up and grow your own backbone. Sport and politics (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point talking with you on the Tim Loughton talk page, you are engaging in distraction techniques, and little else. You originally claimed the source was unreliable, then claimed a single source was not good enough, then claimed BLP violations, and now are claiming the information is not notable/irrelevant. You are changing your position more times than a chameleon changes its colour. I am not going to fill up the Tim Loughton talk page with a pointless discussion of this kind. That is what turns of other users, and prevents constructive editing and discussions. Taking place. You are doing nothing but having a paddy and trying to squabble. Having a discussion with you is a load of hogwash and not worth the energy, unless the content and attitude of what you write changes. Sport and politics (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When did I ever claim "BLP violations"? But if that single source is a tabloid, then no, I'm afraid it's not really good enough for a BLP article. And this Admin that I'm "hiding behind"? It's the one who reverted me immediately above? I'm sorry, but I'm not really up to trading personal insults just at the moment. I'm just trying to keep the Tim Loughton looking a little less like the gutter press. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So in order to stifle debate you elect to run to the drama boards, instead. How very pathetic of you. Unfortunatley, I've met your sort many times before. CassiantoTalk18:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You dismiss what seems to be merited accusations of off-site canvassing with sarcasm. This pompous little boys club is a cancer. I don't know how it'll end but I know the host and the cancer can't both survive. 196.54.41.43 (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I lurk on the List of unusual deaths, and I've noticed your reverting additions due to the source not calling them unusual. I was wondering - does it explicitly have to say 'unusual' for a death to qualify? A user added Rebecca Burger and was reverted for this reason, and indeed the source they used didn't say anything about the death being unusual.
I did, however, find this: http://www.self.com/story/rebecca-burger-whipped-cream-dispenser-death. It describes the death as a "freak accident," a "tragic, shocking incident," "rare," and "a rare and unfortunate event." With that source, do you think this death would qualify for inclusion?
Hi NekoKatsun. The advice is, unfortunately, tucked away on the top of the Talk page. It says this:
"... the clear policy based consensus is to keep this list only to those deaths for whom there are reliable sources (as noted by one person, these need to be high quality sources, not tabloid journals who regularly fling around these words for fun) that the death is in someway exceptional. All other entries (those for whom someone might say "Come on, this is obviously strange") should be removed."
I'm sure we could all easily find reports of deaths which seem to be highly unusual, or even unique. I'd say "freak accident" would qualify. But, as many editors have pointed out in previous RfDs, there is some degree of subjective judgement involved. Many thanks for asking. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, thanks much! In that case, what's your opinion on the source? I found it via the Commotio cordis page but to be perfectly honest, I'm behind a firewall right now and can only view a page cache - I can't really tell if it's reliable/quality enough for inclusion. NekoKatsun (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, it says "freak accident". And it look well reported, not really sensationalist. So I'd say yes. I do hope nobody is going to misread it and claim there have been 60 Million of these types of deaths! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my edit, I just saw this was added and then removed, and thought this should be kept as done for previous Presidents. As for Puigdemont, yes, he's still in office as the Senate has not voted for Article 155 yet. Impru20 (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Every now and then, I wander over to the stage and have to wonder WTH? Occasionally I'll see your user name, and calm befalls me just knowing that we're all batshit crazy. Yay‼️ I'm not an outcast. 🤗 Atsme📞📧20:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you need comfort and support on the grandest scale, try the chorale symphony setting of rejoicing and thanks which we sang last Sunday (pictured) and which still rotates in my mind, after almost a week. What do you think of the battle cry? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our first movement is on YouTube (in the article, - 2016 version). The battle cry is no article, did you see? Was one, but only for a few minutes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
St. Martin's Day today, - have a happy one. Martin L. was baptised that day. He wrote a hymn which was not "A mighty fortress", so created an article on Ein feste Burg, on 31 October, naturally. See if you can find it ;) - It's quoted in our choir's star piece, YouTube at the bottom. The good singers always stand last row in a choir, DYK, but that choir has only good ones! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It defies belief that someone would look at the text I removed and think that the best thing to do with it was put it straight back. If something which purports to be a serious encyclopaedia has an article about a major topic which starts with the text "Firefighters rescued 65 people." and claims that this is an "overview", then it has failed disastrously in its mission. Anyone who cannot perceive the problem with such text cannot be here to build an encyclopaedia. But you restored this woeful content a mere three minutes after I removed it. Do you believe you were making the article better? Do you realise you made it much worse? Or do you simply not care about article quality? 2.25.45.249 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be more productive if you could distinguish between encyclopaedic writing and absolute shit, and not put the latter into articles. 2.25.45.249 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain, at the Talk:Grenfell Tower fire why you think the current overview is "absolute shit"? That way more of the regular editors to the article are likely to see your convincing arguments as to why it should be removed wholesale, instead of just being trimmed or improved in other ways. Thanks so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that it is absolute shit to anyone with the remotest idea of what a good encyclopaedia article looks like. You must be trolling here. Hope it's fun for you. 2.25.45.249 (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's not obvious to me. If you are that concerned I am "a troll", I guess you could take raise the matter at WP:AN/I? Not so much "fun" over there maybe, but it's your privilege if you need to exercise it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It seemed to include the W5 scores (Joe's Paso Doble and Jonnie's Quickstep) that were adjusted to the 40 point scale. So I don't know.NaThang0P (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not clear is it. It's just a bit odd that some of those scores don't appear in the corresponding week's table. Perhaps a note could be added for those two? Perhaps it doesn't matter. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Carles Puigdemont he left the country so he could not be prosecuted witch means he is in exile so I don’t need a sorce for that the sorce is already their Colored (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong views either way, but I think we certainly do need a source. That's your personal conclusion and opinion. But if you want to avoid sanctions you'll need to stop edit warring and discuss at the Talk page. You have passed WP:3RR by now? Please read that policy and take it on board. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin,
I’ve just created a very brief 'History' section over at the (rather dusty) North Wales Weekly News article but then noticed that its current image is from the Carnarvon and Denbigh Herald, which seems to pre-date it. I can’t see any link between them – do you know if there is one, or was the image added in error? Thanks as always! JezGrove (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jez. As you know, that's the wrong end of Wales for me! It looks like the Caernarfon Herald and the Denbighshire Visitor were both sister papers for the NWWN. But that's really not the best image for that article, is it. There is an image here, which I am guessing is copyright free? But it's pretty low quality. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'll leave well alone and let another editor with a deeper interest deal with it. (Possibly puts me in a minority here on WP.) JezGrove (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I blazed anything in North Wales it was an electric kettle on a ceramic hob (don't try this at home, as they say). But do you reckon the launch of NWWN blazed its own trail worthy of inclusion in 1889 in Wales? (Prince Albert Edward made it in there just by not dying...) JezGrove (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weekly News and Visitors’ Chronicle for Colwyn Bay, Colwyn, Llandrillo, Conway, Deganway and Neighbourhood duly added – I was half-surprised that Neil Kinnock wasn’t credited with the title before realising that was totally unfair and it was mainly a Victorian thing – after all, Dickens never used 10 words if 50 would do…! JezGrove (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mr Evans and thank you for the amusing interaction this morning. On CoD I would just like to say: I wish. What I am actually doing is adding a fanfare and outro to an arrangement for Y6 brass players of the Boar's Head Carol. I may live to regret this, and it is possible that Call Of Duty might sound better than my efforts. Boom. Ho hum: the kids will help to improve it. Rashistically, thank you for the very useful list and I was moved to see that Stephen I, Count of Burgundyshared his father's nickname "the Rash", this being I feel clear evidence that William I, Count of Burgundy was a bit of a New Dad and took his fair share of the nappy changing. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, your talk page is sooooo long, think I may be doing actual exercise with all the scrolling! And sorry that I couldnt help you with that thing you mentioned, cant even type it, never mind understand it!Simply-the-truth (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns).
The second pilgrim queries, “Why two blunderbusses?”
The first pilgrim responds, “I usually miss on the first shot; with two I can shoot again”.
The second pilgrim pauses, then asks, “Why not just take the second one, and only shoot once?”
I've WP:BOLDly removed your questions on TRM's page, as we're well into the voting period now. While it doesn't officially say that the question period closes when the voting starts, it seems fair not to leave unanswered questions to confuse people about whether he ignored them or not. Feel free to revert if you disagree. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)20:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, so easy to get distracted isn't it? "Voting is now open to eligible editors until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017". Yes, that is very bold of you - is this a joke? Very sorry that I did not think of any questions for yourself before you withdrew. In previous years I have asked questions on the very day that the election was due to close and often received very good answers. I feel cheated and disappointed. Your move is wholly undemocratic. Either TRM is a genuine candidate or he's not, I guess. I'll certainly revert you for at least the next twelve days. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. when the Candidates/Questions pages clearly state "Questions may no longer be submitted", that's when folks shouldn't ask any more. If you think that guillotine should happen hours, days or even weeks before voting closes, then you'll need to suggest that? Thanks.
... when I read that Catherine Foster was the first English Brünnhilde in Bayreuth. True, and misleading. There was a Welsh one, or two. I know only one. - Anyway, quite a story, my 100th woman bio since I joined Women in Red. I heard her in Götterdämmerung. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I saw her on the Bayreuth stage, perhaps the greatest day at the opera in my life. - This was also impressive, and the critic heard the very same performance as I ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
blushing: the piece was part of a DYK today, and then was made FA, - that hasn't happened to me before! The choir: I am the one and only person who took part in every single project. Not even the conductor did, because he had to miss the Christmas Oratorio that his colleague conducted (the one with the bare-breasted Mary on the poster) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mabbettsville, New York, - I wonder for how many years such a name will be mentioned while the person of the name hasn't added a not-that-horrible-word-again to any article with conflict potential in years, to my knowledge? Nor did I, if we don't count Alfonso und Estrella where I truly didn't expect conflict after checking creation. See classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit your preferred version looked fine to me. Standardisation can be a bit waring. Perhaps one day article content could be stable while the lead image/ layout of the info box could vary at random! A different view each time you select the page! Might make things more interesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I'm used to seeing navboxes at the bottom and infoboxes at the top! It's the stuff in the middle that really matters, I think. But, who knows what's possible.... in a parallel universe! Martinevans123 (talk)
As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)08:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Martinevans123. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Sarek, I fear TRM is still answering questions too quickly for you to delete them? Is five days to go still too close to the deadline to ask a question? I usually leave voting, like monitoring of questions and answers, to the very last minute. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin. Repeated "and"s in a sentence are poor style rather than grammar. They often indicate a juvenile or a non-anglophone. Compare: "Fred packed his mask and snorkel and regulator and fins in his bag" with "Fred packed his mask, snorkel, regulator and fins in his bag". It was disapproved of in Junior school, but that was aeons ago when old-fashioned grammar was taught! Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How exciting! Monday morning scuba. So the sentence in contention is this one:
"Although made prior to the 2004 tsunami disaster, it was not broadcast until 2 April 2005, and was repeated on 24 January 2007 and 16 April 2017."
This stirred memories of a sentence with five consecutive ands in a row, but a quick search revealed this effort (last bullet) by Martin Gardner (no relation) which includes a staggering 46 ands in a row (which, in turn, comprises "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and"), all of which comes to an amazing 68 consecutive ands (with an oxford comma thrown in for good measure, which should really be played ad infinitum), which comprises... Robevans123 (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are different uses of "and" and the sentence is fine. [Self-referential construction intentional.] The first "and" joins two clauses, the second separates two items in a list. The objectionable constructions would be something like "... it was not broadcast until 2 April 2005, and was repeated on 24 January 2007, and was repeated again on 16 April 2017" (run-on, joining three clauses with ands), or "... it was broadcast on 2 April 2005, and 24 January 2007, and 16 April 2017" (three list items joined by ands). However it could be rewritten to avoid perception of overuse of and: "... it was not broadcast until 2 April 2005; this was re-aired on 24 January 2007 and 16 April 2017." Something like that, anyway. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 13:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered the question you wrote in your edit summary on the article's talk page.AndrasSkot (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC) In short there is a colour portrait but I'm not sure about copyright so am not going to upload the photo of it.[reply]
Can you do me a quick favour? I was contemplating sneaking Merry Xmas Everybody into OTD tomorrow, then I noticed that the claimed release date of 7 December 1973 isn't actually in any of the sources given. Unfortunately, since the rest of the internet has now treated this as gospel, it's almost impossible to get a genuinely independent source that confirms the date. The best I can find is this scan from Melody Maker advertising its release, but I can't make out the date on the scan (it looks like 9 December but that was a Sunday). Records were generally released on a Friday, so 7 December sounds likely but not definitively provable. Any other ideas? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Despite over-playing it to the point of irritation, it's still my favourite Christmas song; I've covered it in several bands and there's nothing like playing it as the last song of a gig and just repeating the last chorus with crowds of drunks all singing along at full volume. A British institution. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment re the Christine Keeler caption and apologies for not making myself sufficiently clear. Might I explain? I was responsible for uploading the image and it is indeed from a Channel 4 edition of After Dark. However the possessive ("Channel 4's After Dark) is not strictly accurate: a quick look at the article about this programme shows that during its history it was transmitted by two (indeed rival) broadcasters. It was this which led to my reversion.
Strictly speaking, if the programme is "anyone's", it belongs (as per the copyright of the image) to the production company Open Media - but not only would using this have a certain promotional flavour, it is not an edit I would be comfortable with making (see my Talk page for why).
Many thanks, I've responded on the other pages. Airforce bases, oh, that's way above my pay grade, very sorry! But there must be a hard cell of dedicated Wikimilitarists who can help you? AnOpenMedium (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was implemented as far as I can tell as a result of this - and has not been actually tested since in a formal RFC. The amusing thing is there is no way a 57% majority would be classed now as 'consensus' without extremely strong arguments in favour of it and no real arguments against. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I was searching for a convincing argument as to why secret is better for the WP community than public. Still searching. Although most "democratic" voting is by secret ballot, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of voting for a choice between candidates is secret. Even the less secret 'coloured balls into a bag' is meant to be secret. The US approach where the actual election of the President is down to the electoral college system means that you would know which way an elector is going to vote. Where a vote is not on people but on process (such as individual members of whatever parliament/senate etc voting on a bill) the voting is open - otherwise how could you know your representative is representing your interests? They could say one thing then vote a different way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in an academic survey of WP decisionmaking practices a while back. There were a bunch of questions about whether the usual RfC practices work well, and what I thought of alternatives including secret ballot stuff, among others. I have non-rigid opinions on this stuff, but have come to the following tentative conclusions:
Our open !voting system favors a meritocracy over mob-rule, because "votes" are generally tied to rationales, which everyone can see, and closers can discount pure votes without rationales, and votes with stupid rationales.
It is seriously flawed in that the first few commenters who provide rationale have a undue effect on the outcome (e.g. editors like me who subscribe to a constant stream of RfCs via WP:FRS and look for RfCs that FRS doesn't tell us about, have a disproportionate effect on WP governance. It's also broken because of increasing failure by closers to discount no-rationale and bogus-rationale !votes thus turning them into actual votes (processes like RM and RfC are increasingly just vote-counting with less and less closer regard for policy- or source-based validity of arguments presented).
This could be mitigated by a replacement system in which pro and con arguments (about a proposition, or for each of several multiple-choice options) were presented in a table, and below each was a section for refutation arguments, and below that a space for rebuttal of the refutation. Each of these could be in successive collapse boxes so as not to text-wall people. This is the format used by, e.g., the Voter Information Pamphlet series put out in major cities by the League of Women Voters; it can make very complex propositions much easier to understand, though it is not totally immune to manipulation or oversimplification.
The actual voting would then be done by secret ballot, after closure of the argumentation-presentation period.
The first half of this could simply be done with templates, and a policy change (e.g. that anyone is empowered to revert as disruptive any vote like "Support" or "Oppose" wrongly placed in the presentational material, since it would not be an actual rationale but just exhortation/campaigning). The second half would require an actual secret ballot system be deployed. It would also require a "voting is open on X" notification system. And a standard for what percentage of votes is needed for what kind of proposals; this should include some kind of proportional/weighted voting system. It may sound complex, but our XfD processes are actually more difficult to use than this.
It will probably not happen within my lifetime, if ever, for the same change-phobic inertia reason that causes us to still have a shitty adminship system. It would likely have to be imposed by WMF.
Thanks Step. hen. I wasn't a huge fan of Cheggers. But he always seemed to be good fun, without an all-consuming ego. Sorry he's gone. Wish the article had a suitable photo of him - currently sadly lacking. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Almost unrelated: DYK that I had a great woman for a DYK, and the next day an image arrived? It's still on top of my talk, but I will change it for the soprano from Wales after sleep. The "pleading" image ;) - The Germans had pictured today that the sun of justice should rise in our time, - can't be said enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously for a moment: that was stable for a while. Then someone counted "votes", disregarding that some changed their mind. Not worth protesting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I called Coffee, because he tries to argue with logic in an ibox RfC, which tells me that he knows too little about the background ;) - ... and this little thread sums it up the shortest., seriously. I archived it, in 2014, as "best remembered as a farce". The RfC asks a question which is wrong from the start (should have or not), instead of saying what kind, and that it would be restoring. It was removed with in innocent edit summary ("per GA") in hundreds of expanding edits, so even if you watched the article you wouldn't have noticed, - and then they are so surprised that the question "what happened?" comes up every now and then. I don't care if that article has an ibox or not, but I care about the treatment of everybody who dares to ask that question like a warrior who probably works for me ;) - I seriously hope for more levity in 2018. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please help - we have the one editor - User:Surtsicna - who refuses to have both a separate ancestry section for Markle (on her page) and also states that her proven ancestors - as published in the Washington Post (page 3) and the New York Times (page 5), are only "trivia" and of no interest to anyone. This editor continues to stir up other editors. Your assistance is always appreciated. 101.182.160.40 (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oopsy bumbum, I'm so sorry about this. I definitely need to drink much more alcohol when editing in order to fine-tune my reflexes for the crazy pace of this crazy place ... apologies. In next week's episode I accidentally delete myself whilst trying to tie my shoelaces. Tsk. Sorry Martin! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Over to you then to compose a new Wiki song-type singing masterpiece of an article ! Even though Adrian Hill was born in my home town, the current article states - "He was married to Chrissy from 1989 to 2001; together they had a son, Simon (born 1966)" so clearly I am no good keeping tabs on this Wiki malarkey. Also, why is that a song that only just snuck into our Top 30, remains so memorable. It's not just me - note the clog dancing mice at the bottom of this. Written by Dicks and Rudge too... what's not to like.
Blame dear old Stewpot all you like, you put your head above the parapet. Repeat after me, "I must never never ever again mention new articles in edit summaries". R&B classic or not, I know that Guy's appearances on Wiki these days are spasmodic at best, so you have nothing to fear from an edit war with him. Actually, I have a horrible feeling that Guy might throw in his chips here as part of some New Year Resolution. I am not sure any pleading from thee and me will make much difference, but we surely can not afford to lose our online best buddy and Wiki editing champ. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC) p.s. My favourites included "Don't Jump off the Roof, Dad" (Tommy Cooper) and Frankie Howerd's brilliantly maniacal rendition of "Three Little Fishies" - I always wondered what became of those tiddlers ![reply]
And so it came to pass that I wrote on the Roy Wood article talk page back in March 2006 - "Roy Wood - demi-god in my book." It's still there - check it out. I was in Wiki short trousers back then, so did not appreciate that you were not supposed to add your opinion on the artist. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the subject matter and I seriously doubt that the song sold a million copies. I know The Daily Telegraph is considered a RS, but to pretend "A Windmill in Old Amsterdam" rivalled The Beatles singles for sales at that time is more than pushing it a bit. I can not find any other source that makes such a claim. Having said that, I initially rather doubted the Ivor Novello Award claim too, although it is well documented as being given such a heady status. Probably yet another case of reporting what a RS states, whilst seriously doubting its validity. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather eat worms than be caught saying anything too nice about the Torygraph. That said, there was some really weird stuff went on Back In The Day™ with novelty records and instrumentals and other kinds of ... odditities. I do wonder. Arr. Wonder, I do. Arrrrh. It is a h*ll of a lot of records though. (Takes out pipe and puts cardie on). DBaK (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.
Watched it again this morning - *lol* - dropped by to make sure my Christmas greeting also included my New Year well-wishes. Atsme📞📧15:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Give good gifts, one to another Peace, joy and comfort gladly bestow Harbor no ill 'gainst sister or brother Smooth life's journey as you onward go. Broad as the sunshine, free as the showers. So shed an influence blessing to prove; Give for the noblest of efforts your pow'rs; Blest and be blest, is the law of love.
Dear Martin, thank you so much for the stunning Christmas greeting! All the best to you and yours too. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)02:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[36] Merry Christmas, Martin, and Happy whatever you lot call New Years (it's hard enough for me to recall Hogmanay, and that's actually in something resembling the English language). Cheers and best wishes for 2018! Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rodw - Martin, Rod: Who'd have thought! I signed up about ten days ago. It's great. But, Jeez, you will not believe the amount of promotional cr*p that comes through! The number of vanity biographies, or articles designed to promote commercial enterprises, or both is just staggering. Anyway, I'm sure you'll both enjoy it as much as I have, and it's certainly a job that needs doing. Happy New Year and all the very best for 2018. KJP1 (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will try to do some of these - unlikely to be high on my priority list at present though. I will take a look once the "toolbar" thingy works - which it didn't yesterday.— Rodtalk08:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yessirree Bob - Northamerica1000 got it fixeded. I learned how to do it now so (hopefully) I won't have to interrupt the busy schedules of others in the future.Atsme📞📧17:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It cracks me up, the pop culture references now included in "Do not go gentle into that good night." Perhaps our suggestion that certain criteria (such as significance) be applied was too stringent? I think that there's a lamp store in La Crosse, Michigan called Rage Against the Dying of the Light. I'll add it if I can find a reference. :) Julie JSFarman (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Martinevans123. It has been brought to my attention that you recently edited an article about Harold Shipman. Here at Wikipedia, we appreciate the efforts of people like you who edit articles. However, this particular article is owned by another user. His name is Drchriswilliams. Now, as I said, here at Wikipedia we appreciate people like you who edit articles, but you should know your place and refrain from editing articles that do not belong to you. If you keep editing his article, we will have no choice but to do some kind of gypsy spell on you. For more information, please refer to his talk page here. Thank you for your consideration and, whilst we here at Wikipedia appreciate people like you who edit articles and what not, I really hope I don't have to tell you this again. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sir and/or Madam. Here at Wikipedia we appreciate people like you who edit articles. However, unless you are Martinevans123’s legal representative and/or gypsy-spell-defender, this really does not concern you. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Due to your continued belligerence and lack of willingness to co-operate with my investigation, I have reported you to Islington Council’s Defective Street Lighting unit. I hope it does not affect our friendship. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Might I politely ask why you include links to other Wikipedia articles in each of your replies? I am concerned that I am being insulted without realising it. Please note that I have Osgood–Schlatters disease so it is important to be nice to me at all times. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.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)
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)
You are very humorous!!! UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) (My Contribs) 17:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Martin. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 11:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
— Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
, Ah well it's the thought that counts lol, Anyway have a great Crimbo & New Year! :), –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
. Atsme📞📧 18:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 19:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
so (hopefully) I won't have to interrupt the busy schedules of others in the future.
Atsme📞📧 17:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
