User talk:Martinlc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

MfD nomination of Talk:Farah Damji[edit]

Talk:Farah Damji, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Farah Damji and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Farah Damji during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. This page is beginning to read like a vanity piece. The subject of the piece has been in the press again recently about a number of new criminal convictions but these are not mentioned in the article. Since the subject is really only notable for her criminal convictions, these need to be listed in full in the article. The latest convictions are verifiable and mentioned in more than one press article available online.

Hi and welcome, I've moved Jack Trevor Story and made a few formatting tweaks. Jimfbleak. Talk.15:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

At my age[edit]

Hi, Just wanted to let you know that I have moved At my age to At My Age. I also did a little work on the article.Izzy007 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC) (My Talk)

Speedy deletion of Welsh journals online[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Welsh journals online, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. The Llama! (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Morgannwg (magazine)[edit]

Re. the new article Morgannwg (magazine), this really does need more sources/references.

I can't see where the link given shows any information about this magazine - perhaps it is not yet available, but if that's the case, then the article shouldn't be on Wikipedia.

Are there any secondary reliable sources available?

Regarding all the information in the article - what is it's source, and how can I verify it? For example, "published since 1957, containing historical essays, archaeological reports and book reviews." - how can I check that?

Please see WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N,

Please let me know what you think. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  11:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The external link gives the information included here: I think that's enough for a stub? Martinlc (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a question to the Reliable Sources noticeboard about how far journals self-description needs to be verifiable.Martinlc (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[[1]] discussion concluded that a reliable journal's self-description can be used for non-controversial statements but 3rd party evidence is neded for notability. I have therefore added reference to the selection of the journal by the National Library of Wales as important enough to be digitised.Martinlc (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Martin[edit]

Could you please watch the Juggalo page. Ibaranoff has reverted the changes you made. I changed them back but now he is reporting me as a vandal for doing so. I really don't know what to do. Thank you. (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The above editor has repeatedly vandalized articles and talk pages, does not understand or comprehend our policies, and repeatedly insists that everyone around him is wrong. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC))


Why do you say this editor hasn't been blocked? The block log shows him/her as being blocked early yesterday am. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Steve Peregrin Took[edit]

Good job! Fee can get a bit carried away.. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

xkcd link[edit]

I can't find which talk page or archive has it, but we did have a good discussion of the particular xkcd comic on centrifugal force, and had a decent consensus that it was a good illustration of the nature of fictitious and real centrifugal forces, and a valuable link. I'm not sure why some people think it should be removed, but if you think so, feel free to re-open the discussion on the talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Todd English[edit]

Nice work spotting and deleting the copyvio, I knew it smelled funny. I will take a look at the tags that I added to see if they can go too. – ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

QJ School deputy head thing[edit]

Thanks - I think that's neater and less unduly weighty. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

the Adrian Lamo article.[edit]

OK, here's the thing.

I get that there are numerous, numerous articles out there with significant issues that need correcting. And that you can't do due diligence on the facts of every single one.

However, the facts that you removed from Adrian Lamo are supported by numerous reliable sources just a Google search away. I strongly encourage you to discuss changes on the talk page and/or perform research in the form of a Google search before 86'ing large swathes of text. "Nuke it now and let someone else re-add it" isn't the most constructive editing policy.

I'd do this at this time myself, but I really want to avoid the appearance of biased editing, which is why I've limited myself to restoring the works of others. However, I am a rather longtime and prolific editor, and can certainly do the legwork if needed. I just don't think it'd seem appropriate. You're the one with the changes; it stands to reason that you might do a couple quick Google searches before removing relevant data.

I hope you understand that I'm trying to be diplomatic (albeit not all that well) rather than edit war.

If there's anything I can do to help you build better content in my corner of the net, please feel free to ask. Thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia.

User:Adrian/zap2.js 19:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave Warwak[edit]

Hi there. I see that you have made several edits to this article; I believe the subject is non-notable, and have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Warwak. Robofish (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: HRLN[edit]

I would cite offline resources soon. Nilotpal42 (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Martinlc. You have new messages at Lova Falk's talk page.
Message added 16:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PS I moved your question to the bottom of my talk page. Lova Falk talk 16:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Judgment vs. judgement[edit]

The Myers-Briggs articles are written in American English and have used the spelling "judgment" for years. These articles are based on the works of Isabel Briggs Myers, who was American and used the spelling "judgment" in her works. The spelling was not chosen arbitrarily. The previous editor is the one who either violated WP:RETAIN, or did not realize that "judgment" is the preferred spelling in American English. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Post left on your user page[edit]

check out the last 4-5 external links on estulin better yet go to surf around that website you will find an article related to estulin. Unless you have read it already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Del76toro (talkcontribs) 06:43, 24 August 2010

I've reverted his latest edits - it looks like a machine translation, which means almost certainly copyvio - as it wasn't actually sourced I couldn't check. But I think it was also far to much and deserved at most another sentence, even if sourced. Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brycheiniog (magazine)‎[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Brycheiniog (magazine)‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neutralitytalk 03:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

by the powers vested in me ...[edit]

I grant you a persistent +2 vs. trolls for protection and advancement of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV on and/or about Adrian Lamo and Talk:Adrian Lamo.

Seriously, that's all I'm thanking you for. Any right-thinking person would have seen that content and wondered what it was doing in an in an encyclopedia article. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing /w what I've done.

Thank you for your time and effort in improving the Wikipedia community.

Warm Regards,

User:Adrian/zap2.js 22:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Low Dose Naltrexone article[edit]

Have responded on the article's talk page as you requested with some points for your consideration and possible action.

Diversitti (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Have responded on the article's talk page by asking you to restore content removed during your edit of 12 October 2013, in which you removed about 70 percent of the content of the article. Our exchange thus far, including my new posts responding to your earlier replies, seems to be leading to the conclusion that a great deal of this content should have been either left in place or edited and improved, but not entirely deleted. I'm relying upon you to make these repairs to the article, as you were the person who made the removals. Diversitti (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Gilligan allegations by Keith Vaz[edit]

As requested, please see the Talk page for Andrew Gilligan for reason why material has been reinstated.UsamahWard (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Gilligan entry sources[edit]

I note your recent removal of two sources from the article. The first source is difficult, not least because the original article was deleted, and I understand your reluctance to accept the quoted source. As the Internet Archive is more acceptable in Wikipedia, how would you feel using that to refer to the original article?

On the second source, I would argue that this should be acceptable, as the source includes references both to the printed correction in the Telegraph, and a link to the existing correction published by the Telegraph online; it also provide context. The alternative would be to reference both Telegraph sources directly, but I'm not convinced this is better than using the original, single link, which does not seem to be problematic or controversial. UsamahWard (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In my view the article as it now stands has a strongly-sourced statement that an article he wrote was withdrawn because it made a false allegation.

I do not think in those circumstances that the precise details of the false allegation are needed, especially if it is hard to find the text.

On the second issue, I think enough context is supplied by the DT/ Gilligan's articles rather than going into the question of whether the Temple's bwebsite is reliable and notable. Wikipedia articles shouldn't provide a comprehensive account of a topic, and since this was one column he wrote then extended coverage in his bio would be WP:UNDUE. Martinlc (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Gusi Peace Prize[edit]

Thank you for your useful information. I will definitely cite sources from other publications. Please be assured that I am thankful for your assistance on this matter. Will take care of it. Keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacesurfer (talkcontribs) 04:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gusi Peace Prize, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glen Martin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Cambrian Archaeological Association for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cambrian Archaeological Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambrian Archaeological Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Szzuk (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

it's me again![edit]


I appreciate your taking the time to rv the FBI informants category on "my" page. It's a common misconception and there are conflicting sources. Having reviewed the relevant BLP guidelines, I believe [2] both clarifies the issue and is citable per BLP as a subject posting on an official, "Verified by Facebook" personal blog about an uncontroversial fact. Thus, if it comes up again, there's source & specificity..

I hope this message finds you well. Thanks for editing.

Warm regards,

Adrian Lamo ·· 01:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)