User talk:Martinvl

Hello, Martinvl! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Stwalkerster (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at [[1]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Alex79818 (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:A38DriverLocationSign_km415.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:A38DriverLocationSign_km415.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

DLS/coordinate lists for motorways

Hi. In the future, when including coordinate lists, can you use as many parameters of {{coord}} as possible, especially the "name" parameter? Otherwise, we get something like this. Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 14:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:DLS JunctionCarriagewayIds.png

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:DLS JunctionCarriagewayIds.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

UK motorway distances

Hi there. We appreciate the effort you are making on the UK motorway articles, good job. One request though. When you enter the distances, can you do so in miles rather than kilometres. The distance measurement on the UK roads is in miles so it should use the same units. Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Martin. I had the same problem with distances that towns were from other towns and cities in the UK. suggest you use the following code in your edits which will show the distance initially in miles and automatically convert it to Km's as well. Thus a distance of 3 miles gives.... 3 miles (4.8 km) -- [User has been removed from Wikipedia for having an offensive name] 20:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW The second user has been asked by Wikipedia to change his logon name, so my responses to his page are no longer available. Martinvl (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My response to both correspondents has been to point out that I am cataloguing the values that appear on Driver location signs. The Highways Agency has published the values for the M25. Otherwise I have obtained the numbers from draft of similar documents. By definition, such cataloguing of numbers is verifiable as one need only look at the location marker posts that appear in situ. I also pointed out that introducing miles onto the junction lists would add to the clutter and make them less user friendly. Martinvl (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of TOTSO

A tag has been placed on TOTSO, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The article was unanimously deleted at AFD only 3 months ago, like others have said. There hasn't been any improvement (no addition of reliable sources, etc.) so the TOTSO page ought to have been deleted. I userfied it, however, and it's located at User:Martinvl/TOTSO for your reference. If you wish to overturn an AFD deletion decision, the best place to take it is Deletion review (not simply recreating the page). Do note that people will probably not be willing to overturn the decision or relist at AFD unless you prove that it can be an encyclopedic and notable topic. JamieS93 18:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a few comments on User:Martinvl/TOTSO for you as well, and I just want to make sure you see them. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• The original article has been moved to User:Martinvl/TOTSO. There is no additional content in the history. In particular the article was never placed in any categories. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Re citation needed

This has been transferred to the Martinvl talk page from Dieter Simon's talk page

Dieter=, a few days ago you added a "facts" flag to the article Expressways. This was subsequently changed to a "Citation Needed" flag. I used Google Earth and within five muinutes I was able to verify the statement concerned. Do facts of this nature really need a citation? If so, where does one find these facts? Please be a little more careful when asking for citations. I have removed this flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 20:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martinvl, I don't know about being careful asking for citations. Are you saying that all those editors adding references (in the "Reference" section) whenever they add any text are wasting their time, then? When in fact we are being exhorted to do exactly that? See Wikipedia:Verifiability. The sheer fact that it hasn't been done more often, and that at a flick we can obtain those facts from Google, is neither here nor there. An encyclopaedia creating text, should always cite its sources, not ask readers to go somewhere else to verify facts in order to believe what has been written. No, we should always source our statements, it is not a big deal, espececially if we know where to find these fact. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

When I have some time, I will revisit this entry and add a reference consisting of "This can be viewed using for example Google Earth. The coordinates are: East end - xxxx; West end - xxxx; Viewed dd-mmm-yyyy". Would this be appropriate, or do you think that teh citation should have some other format? Martinvl (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know, you can try and enter it the way you think. Though I have done editing for a number of years I have never come across it. Perhaps you can put a section into the Talk:Expressway page to see what others say for present and future purposes. Let me have a look and see if there is an external source I can find. Dieter Simon (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Copied to Martin's talk page. Dieter Simon (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Martin, there is an article on the E.C. Row Expressway and an external source cited in it: [2]. Shall I leave it to you? If you enter "E. C. Row Expressway" (with quotes) in Google or Yahoo! you'll find quite a few websites. Dieter Simon (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Martinvl, great job, your source works brilliantly. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Communication

Hi, Martin. When you commented on Wikipedia talk:Translation today here, you included namecalling and bad faith assumptions: ("Was this an act of vandalism?", "monolingual script kiddy"). Things like these can make the community less pleasant and discouraging to any user that comes across them.

Your use of the term "monolingual script kiddy" in your reply to Wavelength, to say a probability the reason their addition was changed is the user was one of those, was a violation of our policy against making personal attacks on other editors.

Also, your suggestion to Wavelength that the first thing they should do is check the userpage of the editor who removed or changed their addition (in this case, me), then undo that change, as a monolingual script kiddy vandalising'll probably never notice and change it back, broke our rules on assuming good faith of people who work on the project. In the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, it's important to avoid jumping to accusations or assumptions of thoughtlessness, or searching for a reason to brush off any concerns raised. Instead, focus on the merits of the content, which stands on its own. These policies/guidelines, also known as WP:NPA and WP:AGF, are important core principles of the Wikipedia community.

I hope that the explanation above was clear to you. If not, I'd be happy to explain further, here. I'll watchlist your talkpage for a couple've days in case. Thanks, and happy editing. –Whitehorse1 01:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I notice you've replied there since. I'll continue any content-related discussion there.

←Okay, now replied to any content-oriented parts there. The same points above relate to your second—made before I posted here on your talkpage—reply. In general: be collegial, personal remarks even those the target doesn't see are undesirable; and, in the absence of clear evidence of ill intent, assume good faith. Be well. –Whitehorse1 02:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Relief of Ladysmith

Looking over the article again, I think you have a strong case for getting it renamed. Go ahead and propose it at WP:REQMOVE. Once complete, it may be worth turning the Relief of Ladysmith page into a list linking to all of the battles. Good luck! Ron2K (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Litre

Why not "much less common"? I challenge you to find a use of the dry quart that is less than fifty years old. There's no question that the US system is complicated and foolish, but there's no reason to leave the impression that it is more complicated than it is. We do use the ounce (volume) and the ounce (weight), which is confusing to the consumer, but there's only one pint, quart, and gallon in common use.

And, BTW, "less common" had been there through around 600 edits -- three and a half years -- since the "Rough conversions" section was added. I just added "much". . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is much less common, is it neccessary to include it in the article - we have an exact conversion anyway? Although I agree with yoy that the US system is foolish, but my understanding is that the dry quart and pint are very much part of their way of life than in the UK. I actually think that the reference to the dry quart should be removed compeltely, but given my pro-metric views, I restrained myself in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Martinvl (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought about that. From the point of view of a USA reader, the dry quart is absolutely irrelevant. Why not remove it and see if anyone squawks?. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RaRa?

I left you a note. Groeten, Drmies (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal re Metric System (not "metrication"...)

MayFlowerNorth (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I see your points re deleting my additions. That said, i DO think that such a section would add considerably to the article, to help people grasp what the various prefixes actually mean, since it is an abstract concept which is difficult to handle for many people, and the current section really does nothing to help explain things at all (neither does the unnecessary article on "metric prefixes", i should add). Accordingly, if i made it much more "encyclopedic" in nature, would you leave it be?

-Ross Mayhew.

Hi User:MayFlowerNorth

One of my concerns is the degree of overlap between the two articles International System of Units and Metric system. As I see it, the former should concnetrate on the metric system (or rather SI) as it is today with a small amount of historic background, while the latter should concentrate on the evolution of the metric system. As such I would see no problem with a section showing how Mouton introduced prefixes and maybe discussing (rather than cataloging) prefixes as they developed between 1793 and 1960 (introduction of SI). Also, the two articles should cross-reference each other to guide readers between them. WHat are your feelings on the matter? Martinvl (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Moratorium?

Declaring it over? Justin talk 21:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Martinvl (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Like adding a metriculated table was not intentional? Justin talk 21:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I added some additional information that I believed was relevant. The addiitons were strictly inaccordance with the Wikpedia pillar WP:VERIFY. If you think it irrelevant, please say so on the article talk page. Martinvl (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Charles Rawden Maclean

Thanks for starting this article - I have been fascinated by his story since I first saw his grave in my local cemetery and have gradually been collecting a lot of info about him, with a view to starting an article shortly. I have recently ordered a copy of Stephen Gray's book to fill in more of the detail - I'll read it on my forthcoming holiday.

With this in mind, I have been adding links to various pertinent articles - ironically, the only relevant article where he is not mentioned is that for Durban. Perhaps that can be rectified in due course. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I also intend to create an article about the John Ross which was named after him. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daemonic Kangaroo. Thank you for your message. My main interest in him was his connections with Durban. I stumbled across his name when I was updating the article Tugela River. (I used to live in in the town of Colenso which was on the banks of the river). In the next few days I intend to write the South African part and I am quite happy to leave you to write the rest. Martinvl (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for what you have done so far - I am a bit perplexed by the confusion over the date of birth as both the Friends of Old Southampton Cemetery and the Fraserburgh Heritage Centre are adamant about the 1815 date. I will probably email them and ask for their comments - is their any chance that you could email me copies of the pages in the books cited by you so I can pass these on to them? I have a recent photo of the grave, which I will upload to WP Commons and add to the article, and that for the cemetery.

By the way - do you live in Durban? My wife and I are planning to re-visit South Africa next year (we went to Pretoria, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town, via the Garden Coast, 4 years ago). What's the best time to come from a weather point of view? Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daemonic Kangaroo. Thank you for your note. I will get together the sources that I have and send what photocopies I can lay my hands on. BTW, I live in Fleet (other end of Hampshire), but I was at univeristy in Durban. Martinvl (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now received the biography written by Stephen Gray in 1992, in which he asserts that the coreect date of birth is 17 August 1815, which he has checked against the Fraserburgh parish records. He is rather dismissive of the works of both Ritter (which he describes as "fiction") and Bulpin. Rather than edit the article piecemeal, I would prefer to read the whole book and then summarise its contents. As I will be away for most of July, it will be several weeks before I can come back on this. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daemonic Kangaroo. Are you happy to transfer this conversation to the Charles Rawden Maclean page (removing the personal bits)?

As regards visiting South Africa, the coastal areas are best during the South African summer (Oct to Apr), while the game parks (espl Kruger National Park are best during the South African winter (Apr to Oct). The northern part of the Kruger Park is closed during the South African summer. If you do plan to visit Kruger, book from the UK - you will get preferential treatment as you are bringing foreign currency into the country. Martinvl (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course, much of this should be on the article's talk pag. I'll leave you to decide what to include./not include. And thanks for the info on SA. I plan to retire next May/June, so October looks favourite. We did visit Kruger four years ago in July - it rained every day! But I'm looking forward to it already! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Rawden Maclean

NW (Talk) 06:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tugela River

Hi Martinvl, Please accept my apologies - I hadn't noticed that I'd already 'corrected' article in question - if I had i'd probably have twigged that it had been reverted. I hope I didn't cause any offence. I'll of course be more careful in future. Regards, TicketMan - Talk - contribs 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WP South Africa welcome

Hi, Martinvl Welcome to WikiProject South Africa!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to South Africa. Here are some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve South Africa-related articles. Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. You may also be interested in joining WikProject Africa, the parent project to WikiProject South Africa. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We hope you enjoy working on this project.

WP:OR

I removed your "statement" as it appears to be WP:OR, nothing to do with WP:FALKLANDSUNITS which I simply mentioned in passing as you appear to have edited deliberately in contradiction of it and WP:MOSNUM. Please stop with the drama and personal attacks. Justin talk 20:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC) [3] Added to the OR noticeboard, you are of course welcome to contribute. Justin talk 20:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Falklands Dates

I reverted your addition to the heading as the "Argentine" colonial effort was between 1828 and 1831, then for about a month in late 1832. Modern Argentina claims the period 1820-1833 but there are a number of problems with those claims. I suggest it is simply better to avoid the controversy that will ensue. Justin talk 07:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, point taken Martinvl (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you could wait awhile, I'm kind of busy right now? Why does it have to be now? Justin talk 10:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring, great, I try to collaborate and you wish to make everthing a battle. What exactly is your problem? Justin talk 11:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Justin, we are all busy - how long do you want me to wait and why? Martinvl (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm at work and the changes popped up on my watchlist, I just wanted time till this evening so I could answer your question and explain the different elements of the history. 6 hrs or so, that is all. Justin talk 11:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

I think you may have meant the edit previous to mine? [4] Active Banana (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for any inconvenience - we both hit the vandalism within five minutes which is a good thing. Anyway it is sorted now. Martinvl (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

AMU reversion

Sorry, referring maybe I am being a bit tired/dense, where does it say that the preferred usage for large or small values is Dalton? It says it is "often used" sure, but the text is suggesting it is somehow preferred? (diff in question) User A1 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The use of prefixes is referred for all SI units. (I am a part-time physics teacher so I come across this problem regularly).

Sorry, I think we are not quite on the same topic -- I am suggesting that the citation does not indicate that dalton is preferred over the AMU unit "u", which is the implication in the sentence. For example. what prevents someone from writing "ku" rather than "kDalton"User A1 (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, the BIPM reference does not prefer one above the other. However it appears that the ISO reference (which was added by another editor) does. As this is the case, I think it best that this discussion be continued on the article's talk page. Martinvl (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have continued this over at Talk:Atomic mass unit User A1 (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

How is WP:RJL US-biased?

I would appreciate it to me if you could explain why you see WP:RJL as US-biased. You have offered little proof to back up your assertion. --Rschen7754 08:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made a proposal to include the UK in RJL at WT:RJL. --Rschen7754 00:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rschen7754. I saw your proposal. By and large it looks OK, but I think it best that somebody else form the UK groups has some input. If nobody else does, then it might well just end up being ignored.

I think that the real reason that the UK editors do not appear to be cooperating is that the promotes of the RJL have taken the US model as being the start point of discussions, rather than putting the US model and the UK model alongside each other and taking the common points as the start point. I get the feeling that earlier discussion have annoyed UK editors to the extent that they are just boycotting RJL discussions.

May I put one item into perspective. I have read a number of John Grisham books and I get the feeling that every US country has its court house and that the judges and politicians at county level have considerable power. The UK is much more centrally administered. I don't know the name of the chairman of our District Council (which serves a population of 80,000), not of our County Council (which serves a population of just under 1,000,000). You will probably find that this is true of most Brits (apart from Londoners where the mayor does have some power). This reflects our lack of interest in county boundaries. It also explains why we get hot under the collar whe we are told by outsiders what is important in our own country. Martinvl (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other active UK users currently? In response to your other points, WP:RJL (then WP:ELG) has been in force worldwide since around 2007, before the current UK model was developed. --Rschen7754 19:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a few, but as I have said, they have probably had enough of the RJL debate and are ignoring it. Martinvl (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well... it will probably be implemented then, if nobody from the UK objects. (Not that it's a huge change anyway, it just sets Wikipedia MOS guidelines and your own project consensus regarding miles and km into the guideline). --Rschen7754 20:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin, you're right to a degree about every county here having a courthouse and power-wielding judges. Anyway, do you have any objection to adding cities to junction lists? Last time around, I asked about it the logic was since some junctions were out in the middle of nowhere, and obviously wouldn't have a location, that no junctions should have a location. I, for one, would like to know where M1 and M25 intersect, not just that they meet at J6a on the M1. –Fredddie™ 21:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the need for localities in junction lists as being important - the UK concept of a "city" is different to the American concept - historically a "city" in the United Kingdom had a bishop. The UK roads group ensures that the only localities quoted on the junction lists are those that appear on the roads themselves which is why we have different lists for each direction.

BTW, I think that the M1 and M25 intersect in either the Watford or the Hertsmere district (I have not checked which). Does Hertsmere mean anything to you? Probably not. That is why we don't use district names on our junction lists. Martinvl (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Hertsmere doesn't mean anything to me, but I think you're missing the message here. When I'm looking at a junction list, I want to know where the junction is, not where the roads at the junction will take me. –Fredddie™ 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Freddie, you are missing the point. Large pasrts of England are divided up into counties. Hertfordshire is one such county. Counties are in turn divided up into Districts. Hertsmere is one such district. If you want things put into perspective, please visit ISO 3166-2:US (an area with which I believe you are familiar). Now visit ISO 3166-2:GB. See if you understand it! (BTW, Martinvl (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Before we confuse each other more than we already have, do we agree or disagree that ISO 3166-2:GB level localities should be in the junction lists? I think they should. –Fredddie™ 21:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that much more complicated than British Columbia. --Rschen7754 21:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I live in the United Kingdom. Maybe it is just possible that I know more about my own country that do people who have never set foot here. I shall not be making any more comments regarding this topic on my home page.Martinvl (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Martinvl/Primary destinations

Hi, why has this page been created? Are you aware that it has been created in the main userspace? I did userfy it for you to User:Martinvl/Primary destinations because the page name contains your user name, which is why I marked the page for speedy deletion, however I notice you have since changed it back. Is this supposed to be in main space? -- role^player 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Air Rhodesia Flight 825

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Socatres2008. Thank you for your note. There was a dispute for which I apologised. The apology was accepted. Since the issue was resolved before the article was flagged, I think that the flag was unneccessary and should therefore be removed. Martinvl (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed that an experienced editor would do this in the first place, but fair enough. The ANI case is closed now too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Metric Calendar - opposition

The French Republican Calendar met a lot of opposition, and was eventually discarded. Tabletop (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am fully aware of that. I am also aware of a site that gives it a good description and which converts betweeen the Gregorian Calendar and the French Revolutionary Calendar. I did a Y2K verification of that site. Having said that, woudl you please add references and not leave others to do so? Martinvl (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Banking edit on Economy of the Falkland Islands

I reverted a recent edit but only because it made no sense. I think you have some words missing. Do you want to fix it, I think you'll see what I mean when you re-read it. Justin talk 20:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Justin, I have rewritten the section. Martinvl (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Justin talk 22:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you Know

Hi, I've nominated an article you started, Thomas Fairfax (Gilling), for the "Did you know" section of the main page. See Template_talk:Did_you_know#Thomas_Fairfax_.28Walton.29_and_Thomas_Fairfax_.28Gilling.29. Do you have any thoughts about the article and another article about this person's father, which I started and which is also part of the nomination? --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi User:La comadreja. Thank you for your message. I started the article in rather a hurry in order to correct the error that the common ancestor of Prince William and Kate Middleton was General Sir Thomas Fairfax (who lived a century later). I will add my references today. However, I have no other knowledge of him. Regards Martinvl (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I found one pretty decent source online, which you would see if you get to the articles, and I don't know where the others would be. What references do you have in mind? --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Update

Anyway: The DYK reviewer said the articles needed other sources if they're going to appear on the main page. They probably need to be added soon if the nomination is going to pass. I don't know what they would be. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Space puzzle

I've seen this kind of edit before, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what purpose it serves. Can you explain? HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi User talk:HuskyHuskie.

This is a "no-breaking space" - it ensures that Wikipeida does not put a "new line" between the "200" and the "km". Martinvl (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That's so cool to know that. Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

UK & Aussie republicans

Howdy. I meant place the Australian PM's comments in with the UK Bishop's comments. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton

Howdy. Would you please restore the Broadbent comments to that article, as you didn't have a consensus to delete it? GoodDay (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets see what other editors think. As far as I am concerned Broadbent is a nobody who used offensive language. Martinvl (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Offensive language, so what? Wikipedia isn't suppose to be censured. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If disagreement continues over the intro, we could just mention he's the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

We should use what other authoritative sources say.

I have seen many report of "second in line to the throne" and "second in line to the British throne" while one report that has been syndicated to many countries around the world says "William, second in line to the throne of 16 realms, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, is ..." Martinvl (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, plus it's alot better then 'second in line to Elizabeth II'. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Re the "th" issue, your edit and edit summary are at loggerheads. Ericoides (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

support

I removed on eof your comments, the sections are clearly for supports not comments, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I put it back, its a big mess, people supporting one and two and opposing, sill really. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Martinvl, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Martinvl/LondonAmbulance. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation for Pound (mass)

Please provide a citation for your edit to Pound (mass). Please be aware that comments in an edit summary do not constitute a citation. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added some references - one of them itself has a reference to what appears to be a reputable book (which might be out of print). Martinvl (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

freeways

thanks Martinvl; actually that was me (latest merge proposer). I'm trying to push expressway to the lower grade of highway from freeway, rather than a lexical "roads called expressways" basis, which is as inappropriate as the present "roads called motorways" bent of Motorway. See WP:DICTNankai (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, do you have access to an OECD definition similar to the Motorway one that would describe an expressway?Nankai (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nankai, I have only seen OECD definitions for motorways and for roads. These definitionsa re used for statistical purposes when comparing the economies of different countries. If you have too many definitions, it becomes difficult to compare like with like. In my view, I would define an expressway as being a road that fulfils one or more (alternatively two) of the criteria for a motorway - I haven't made up my mind which is the better cut-off point. Martinvl (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Stellenbosch to bid for Wikimania 2012!

Hi Martin!

The nascent South African Wikimedia chapter has decided to bid to host Wikimania in Stellenbosch, South Africa in 2012. This would be the first Wikimania in South Africa, and would be a great advertisement for our country. Please take a look at meta:Wikimania_2012/Bids/Stellenbosch. If you can add to the discussion, please do. If you feel that you are able to do anything to help, please join the Wikimedia South Africa mailing list and let us know. Even simple messages of support are valued!

Best regards,

David Richfield

Rollback and reviewer granted

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have also given you reviewer rights. See WP:REVIEWER and Help:Pending changes for more information. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Stone (mass) (disambiguation)

Thank you for fixing Stone (mass) (disambiguation). — Robert Greer (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

French units of measurement (to 1795)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of French units of measurement (to 1795), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: French units of measurement. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review on Falkland Islands

Appreciate the enthusiasm but shouldn't we wait for the peer review to focus our efforts. No objection to the changes, its just a review requires a stable article. Wee Curry Monster talk

OK, I will hold back. Martinvl (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Falkland Islanders

I think that as part of improving the Falkland Islands article we can take a good shot at expanding this article enough to reach a DYK. This would definitely make it easier improve the main Falkland Islands page after the information has been taken in, because it would be easier to see what was important. Thought I'd mention it as I was going to work on it, and saw you had made some recent edits to the page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chipmunkdavis

I did a little work so as to substantiate the summaries that I had in the main article. I was not planning to do very much more work apart from maybe using the census data. The census data suggests that the section on religion is oveplayed - the census figures showed "Christian" and "not specified/none" as being about 99% - other faiths accounted for about 1%. I also planned to get proper references for the Roman Catholic and Anglican hierarchy, but not much more. The other issue that I don't quite know how to handle is the number of contract workers on the island (at least that is what the census figures tell me) without doing OR. Martinvl (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It just seems like a good opportunity to get some good information placed on these articles. The religion section does seem strange and disproportionate, although no doubt more information about christianity would go a long way towards fixing that. Personally I want to do something about the language section, a short summary of the dialect. Might be worth adding a paragraph about history too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Undone indentation of comments

I've just undone a change you made to my comments on Wikipedia talk: No original research since it represents a substantial alteration to my comments. The purpose of indentation is to show what is being responded to. If as here, both posts relate to a single previous comment then one following the other with the same indentation level is correct. By indenting my comments you alter them in to a response to SDY's comments rather than your comments. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. Martinvl (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

NOR

When people object to changes to core content policies, you can't keep reverting, Martin. What you've added makes no sense, and it can't stay as it is. I'd appreciate it if you'd revert yourself. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slim Slim Virgin II.

I added two sections - the use of maps and the use of "reputable computer programs". The use of maps had been discussed, but I agree the use of "reputable computer programs" had not been discussed. I have removed the phrase regarding "reputable computer programs". When I originally made the change regarding the use of maps, a number of constructive comments were made and the phrasing also became unwieldy, hence my splitting the first sentence into two into what I believes clarifies the position. I invite yot to reread what is there.

Another reason that I reverted what you had written was that I had originally wanted to combine the section on routime calculations, but was explicitly asked by User:Kmhkmh not to do so as the Maths group were discussing that section. This is also a reason why I decline to revert. Martinvl (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Martinvl. You have new messages at Talk:Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ADS query

Hi fellow wikipedian, My information was gathered personally and through my colleagues, the last two weeks of April we documented and recorded information from advanced direction signs, using photographs and data from the roadside. About 12 of us were involved in the project, and that is why I have worded the update phrase as I did, we all saw it fit for purpose. Also I am sorry if I have offended you by replacing your contributions but they were inaccurate I'm afraid. For those roads we couldn't go to we used various web resources and contacted people living in the area to help us and contribute their information for the pages. The information gathered was from the ADS on the road at the 1m, 1/2m and 0m signs (or 2/3m, 1/3m, 0m), so are up to date, however where signs were not visible either removed or damaged we used past sources to gather information. The Highways Agency also helped us with our contributions. Thatmotorwayguy (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

ADS

Hi, The information I contribute is 99% accurate, human error can account for 1%. I gather all my information from reliable and trusted sources, I gave up using the DfT and HA, their information sometimes lacks the 'accuracy'. DLS are everywhere nowadays and can be found now on Google Streetview, which would provide accurate information for you, just a suggestion there. Thatmotorwayguy (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

History of the metric system

Thank you for creating this interesting article. It is a shame you did not nominate it for front page exposure at T:TDYK (now it is too late for that). :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, I forgot Excel only carries it out to 14 digits. It's 39.370078740157480314960629921259842519685039… (repeating 370078740157480314960629921259842519685039) --JimWae (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi JimWae

Thank you for your note. While you might be correct, the way in which I expressed the values is exactly correct, reflects the definitons and is quicker to enter on a calculator (unless the user is working to four decimal places, in which case he should use the values in the table). Martinvl (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Article in Arbitration

Having briefly reviewed the article's discussion history, I've identified you as a potentially aggrieved editor whose contributions may have been negatively impacted by the actions of a group of editors who are alleged to be POV-pushing and engaging in WP:GAMES. I invite you to peruse the arbcom request and voice your opinion and experiences, at your leisure. The link is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WP:NPOV_and_WP:GAMES_in_.22Falkland_Islands.22_and_related_articles

Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of maps in Wikipedia

re [5], thanks for taking this on. I started this guideline the last time this came up. I worked on this for a bit, but when interest waned I gave up and moved on. Nice to see some others chime in. This comes up every year or so, so it would be nice to at least have a guideline that we can use when this comes up. Dave (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Interesting though that we came in from a totally different angles - my thank to the editor who drew my attention to you article. I liked your observation of mass-transit maps. I trust that you are in agreement with my concept regarding the use of the same analysis technique in two different disciplines. Martinvl (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with in general with what's being discussed. I'm not sure I would have said maps should be treated the same as foreign language sources; however, aside from not liking the wording, I understand the point being made. Dave (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you think of alternative phrases? One that springs to mind is "Specialised notation" and liken it to a music score. I know nothing about music, but I am sure that there are certain concepts that anybody who can read a music score can picjk up immeadiately. Maps are the same. How happy are you about trying to work something about music scores (or anything else) into the article. I could get my daughter to assist - she has sung in the Halle Choir - the top English choir outside London. Martinvl (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

History of the Falkland Islands

Hi,

We were discussing how to fix that on the talk page. Please join in there. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

redirect repeated links

Hi, could you provide an example of your recent addition to MOSLINK? I'm unsure what it means. Tony (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tony - see my example in Zara Phillips. Martinvl (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Expressway redirect

Thanks for your recent assistance with the article Limited-access road. Please pop in to Talk:Limited-access road to discuss the redirect for Expressway Nankai (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

Your original text on the sovereignty dispute was more accurate, the 1955 case involving Argentina foundered as Argentina indicated it would not respect the result. I see no need to include Chile, as this appears to be widening the dispute over the Falkland Islands. Reason (A) for the revert. Switching the statement to Brisbane is also less accurate for a summary as it is Vernet who made the original claim of destruction of the settlement when he sought to gain compensation for his losses. I link the statement to Brisbane in History of the Falkland Islands, which is I believe the right place to do it. Reason (B).

I always give a reason for reverting, your habit of initiating revert wars without discussing per WP:BRD is generating unnecessary conflict and I do wish you would stop doing so. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Miss/Ms/Mrs Phillips

Hiya. I know that some "actual usage" occurs as you say, but technically and legally (and the Palace would agree) dictates that Miss is the style of a spinster and Mrs the automatic legal style of a married, divorced or widowed woman, regardless of their surname ✝DBD 17:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your note. How do you know that the Palace would agree, especially since she is the first memeber of the Royal family not to take her husband's name. We should either leave it as it is or wait for announcements to be made.

BTW, I see that you are a Hampshire Hog - I am one by adoption. Martinvl (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:WessexBankStatement.svg

Hello Martinvl, I've updated your SVG. I've included the :File:Wyvern of Wessex.svg. The IBAN code seems only in the preview overlong, but next time I would choose the font condensed. The background is semi transparent, is that right? Greeting -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Perhelion

Thank you for your note.

Yes, it was my intention to use a semi-transparent background. I also used the same font that appeared on my own bank statements. The Bank of Wessex is of course a fictitious bank as is the addressee. If you know anything about the legend of King Arthur, you will probably understand the fiction that I used. Martinvl (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm ok, you'll use the image for an article? -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 17:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

MOS

Hi,

The MOS is currently under discussion. Edit warring over drastic and unilateral changes will only get you blocked. — kwami (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kwami,

Thank you for your note.

I appreciate your concern - I have been trying to get this change done for some time, but edit-waring over dashes led to this article being locked. There was a discussion which is now somewhere in the archives. Part of the reasons for the change that I made is to overcome the problems related above.

BTW, I made a very similar change to the section on Units of Measure a few months ago which was well received.

Regards Martinvl (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing this and any others you've spotted. It was unintended and I reverted some too. I'm doing a huge run to fix massive overlinking of common units and some false positives got through my old process. I've updated the process and it shouldn't happen again. Thanks very much. Lightmouse (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help at the IoP workshop. MGJ (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Avogadro

Distinguish properly between Avogadro constant and Avogadro number --RGForbes (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Martin, thank you for helping at the Institute of Physics Wikipedia workshop. By being knowledgable, patient, and helpful, you helped Wikimedia UK create a very positive and professional impression. I hope you'll be involved in future Wikimedia UK events. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

M5 coordinates

As I think you know, there is no consensus one way or another in the RJL discussion. There clearly is no space consideration in the M5 table; and separate columns for coordinates is pretty much a de facto standard for tables, as a perusal of the following links demonstrates. I could point you to a couple of thousand more such tables, but you get the drift. Some members of highways projects may want to play silly buggers over this, but fortunately they do now own the articles in question. On wikipedia, we are about providing the best service for our readers. Our readers are not best served by providing partial information where the complete picture can be provided with nil downside. I trust you will reconsider you position, or else point me to settled policy or guidelines forbidding such information. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Arctic_Circle#Geography
• CIM-10_Bomarc#Operators
• LORAN#List_of_LORAN-C_transmitters
• List_of_islands_of_Michigan#Lake_Erie
• Panama_Canal#Layout
• Vandenberg_Air_Force_Base#Launch_sites
• South_Georgia_and_the_South_Sandwich_Islands#South_Sandwich_Islands_2
• List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_world#Tallest_structure_by_category
• River_Parrett#Route_and_points_of_interest
• Geography_of_Cuba#Extreme_points
• List_of_cities_in_Canada#Alberta
• Antarctic_Circle#Geography_and_demographics
• Splashdown_(spacecraft_landing)#Locations_of_splashdowns
• Box_Tunnel#Geographical_location
• List_of_abbeys_and_priories_in_England#Bedfordshire
• North_Walsham_&_Dilham_Canal#Locks_and_Watermills
• River_Avon_(Bristol)#Route_and_points_of_interest
• Bridgwater_and_Taunton_Canal#Route
• Manchester_Bolton_&_Bury_Canal#Locations_of_features
• Hells_Canyon#Points_of_interest
• List_of_tallest_structures_in_the_world#List_by_height
• 2010_FIFA_World_Cup#Venues
• Longwave#List_of_longwave_broadcasting_transmitters
• Coast_Mountains#High-prominence_peaks
• List_of_communities_in_the_Northwest_Territories#Communities_recognised_by_the_Government_of_the_Northwest_Territories
• Mackenzie_River#Tributaries
• A38_road#Notable_locations
• N1_road_(South_Africa)#Tolls

• That's great. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is no consensus for including a coordinates column, period, in MOS:RJL. No matter how you spin it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither is there any consensus for excluding a coordinates column, period, in MOS:RJL. No matter how you spin it. I refer you to the second paragraph of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Then clearly you haven't read the discussion on the talk page, where almost everyone except you and PigsontheWing has made it clear that they don't want a separate column. Showing us a list that is composed entirely of non-road articles, save for two in which the junction list is not the table in question, proves absolutely nothing. Multiple editors have spoken, but feel free to break WP:3RR. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's good of you to infer that I would wish to break 3RR. Your good faith overwhelms. I would rather you read para 2 of otherstuff, and also Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#Precedent_in_usage, and explain why none of this affects road junction lists. There is - to my perception - a long history of your side ducking all discussion and insisting that no consensus means no consensus to do stuff you don't want done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The debate continues on WP:RJL. Martinvl (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Etiquette regarding extension of discussion onto policy pages

It would have been appropriate to inform talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom of your proposal at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Polls and surveys.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable accusations

These accusations that you put on my talk page are unjustified. Your behaviour is becoming disruptive. Please calm down and go back to the articles you mention and try to justify your misleading contributions. Your metrication POV-pushing agenda has become all too apparent across a number of associated articles recently and your rude and inflammatory reactions to my toning-down of your attempts is becoming intolerable. We have made some constructive process on some articles; please try to assume good faith and we may be able to resolve the issues with some of the other articles in question. -- de Facto (talk). 15:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) I disagree. A brief glance through your contributions for the past few months show that while you are intently devoted to metric/imperial things, especially in Britain, you have also recently jumped ship into three articles that you don't have a history of editing which Martinvl does, seemingly to instigate.[6][7][8] In most cases you have made incorrect assumptions and just gone through cutting apart articles of which you have no real understanding. Please stop, or I will happily back Martinvl at his ANI thread. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If you had done your research more thoroughly you'd have seen the trail from Metrication in the United Kingdom through Driver location signs to both Kilometre and Milestone. That path was taken to attempt to correct the misrepresentations being perpetrated. A quick reading of my edit comments and/or any associated talkpage discussion at each stage will quickly confirm that. Your time would be better spent checking the record of this poster amongst the metric/imperial related articles and seeing if you can spot the trait that has lead us here. -- de Facto (talk). 16:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Introduction to the metric system

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Introduction to the metric system. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Metric system. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Metric system - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. AstroCog (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of M1 motorway junction list

The article M1 motorway junction list has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

you want user reaction? Utterly redundant.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of M1 motorway junction list for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article M1 motorway junction list 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/M1 motorway junction list 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Metric system

Your introduction will stand a much better chance of survival if you create it at Portal:Metric system. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:M1 motorway junction list

Template:M1 motorway junction list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Imzadi 1979 → 22:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

More unacceptable behaviour by you in Metrication in the United Kingdom

Martinvl, you are pushing the limits of our tolerance of your behaviour in this article. Earlier, despite the matter of the Which?/Asda content being the subject of ongoing discussions, both in the article and on a couple of noticeboards - in which your interpretation of the material has been rejected - you made an inflammatory edit reverting that content and shoe-horning your POV of the material into the article. In that edit you also introduced other non-NPOV changes of wording to another section. I later removed an unsourced sentence from the lead of the article which asserted that children were not being tought how to manipulate imperial units, which you immediately reverted with the pointed and infammatory edit comment: "Reverted as per WP:POINT". Please try and cooperate with other editors on this article and assume good faith, and try not to antagonise others by the use of intolerant language in edit summary wording and by personalising disagreements by throwing around unsubstantiated accusations and intimidatory threats of disciplinary action on talk pages. -- de Facto (talk). 16:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Be my guest and lodge a formal complaint! Martinvl (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning

You are now on 5RR at Metrication in the United Kingdom. Please stop edit warring or you may be reported and blocked. Pfainuk talk 22:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reported you at WP:ANI/3RR for your sixth revert in 24 hours.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hey Martinvl, thanks for all of your efforts to help Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it seems that some other editors have a difference of opinion in this case - I would ask that you stop reverting their reverts, and instead go over to the article's talk page to discuss the changes with them. Please also take a look at this policy and make sure that you don't continue edit warring. Thanks, and have a great day. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible block at Metrication in the United Kingdom

Hello Martinvl. It seems that you've been steadily reverting against other editors since October 6, and there is no evidence of any consensus on the talk page in favor of your changes. If you will promise to stop warring on this article, you may be able to avoid sanctions. I urge you to respond at WP:AN3#User:Martinvl reported by User:VsevolodKrolikov (Result: ) and agree to wait for a talk page consensus before reverting again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Metrication in the United Kingdom. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=See below}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Martinvl reported by User:VsevolodKrolikov (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Firstly, the administrator concerned ignored a reasonable procedural request and secondly that no notice was taken of other parties who were undermining the integrity of Wikipedia by pushing WP:POV via persistent misrepresentation of a WP:RS. I have requested that the block be put on hold while mandatory mediation between the reporter, User:DeFacto and myself takes place. Full details below (User:Martinvl#Unblock request)

Decline reason:

You were appropriately warned about WP:3RR, yet continued. The block is well-founded, and necessary to protect the project from the hazards of edit-wars. There are very very few exceptions to the 3RR policy, and you were already advised this was not one of them. This extremely brief block gives you the opportunity to read the related policies: WP:EW, WP:3RR, and most especially WP:DR. While blocked, prepare your "case" for WP:DR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I wish to appeal against this blockage on the following grounds:

1. The placing of a block weas premature because no notice was taken by the administrators of my request entitled Procedural Request by Martinvl to Administrators and in particular the phrase I await guidance from the administrators as to how they wish to proceed.
2. The placing of a block on me and not on other editors invovled was unjustified because no notice was taken of WP:POV pushing by the persistent misrepresentation of the content of a WP:RS is by the reporter and more especially by by User:DeFacto (who has also been WP:HOUNDing me and provoking me by WP:POINT). This situation was not helped by the actions of USER:Pfainuk who was [[WP:GAME]ing the system to score points off User:Michael Glass in the same artcile at the same time time and who decided to score some points off me at the same time. PfainUK has in the past used WP:GAME and WP:SYN to promote his own POV, provoking both Michael Glass and myself. Had the adminstrators not ignored my procedural request, I would have laid the above allegations out in more detail.

Since I am effectively alleging that the reporter and DeFcto are undermining the integrity of Wikipedia, I request that:

1. My blockage be put on hold.
2. My allegations regarding POV by persistent misrepresentation of the content of a RS be submitted for compulsory mediation.
3. Once the mediators have reported back, my reverts be reassessed in the light of the conduct of other editors who were invovled. Martinvl (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I am an admin, but I'm not acting as one here, just giving advice and making comments. First of all, you want to use the {{unblock}} template as that will get your request actually noticed. Secondly... it seems that the blocking admin was being quite generous here. 3RR is there for a reason - there's no point in constantly reverting, and it's disruptive. You stop and discuss before you keep revert warring. Now, should other editors have been blocked, I don't know, I haven't looked into their edits.

Also, a 3RR block isn't a "Wikipedia death sentence" - look at my block log. Granted, due to the specific circumstances I might have been able to successfully appeal that block, but I didn't and it's there. Oh well. It doesn't affect me or my editing today. --Rschen7754 09:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

3RR on Metrication in the United Kingdom

Martinvl, beware - you don't need another block! -- de Facto (talk). 14:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Martinvl: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Alpha Quadrant, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-compliance with Verifiability policy

I have raised your belief that the German Wikipedia is a reliable source at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Treating German Wikipedia as a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Foot (unit). Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please do not reference articles to articles on Wikipeida or any other wiki. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Foot

Just a word of thanks for all the work you have put in at Foot (unit). The article is, in my opinion, much improved as a result, although it still has, again in my opinion, a very long way to go yet. I'd like to apologise for rather forcing your hand over the matter of the circular references; I'd also like to apologise for having done so little myself in the way of referencing, after we had agreed to work on it together. Do I understand that you are fluent in Dutch? That is a valuable talent indeed. I will try to make some positive contributions to the article myself soon; meanwhile, I have removed the unreferenced stuff from the "History" section ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers

Thank you for your note - all appologies accepted. You will notice that I have worked six contemporary references into the text so that you do not have to hunt for them in the references. I can read Dutch reasonable well, but I hesitate to write it - learning Afrikaans in school in South Africa wrecked my chances of sorting out the Dutch grammar unless I put a lot of work into it. I read a little German and was able to guess my way around the French references by understanding the subject matter plus a few words.

Regards Martinvl (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Offensive accusations

This addition that you made to the Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#A question for the mediator discussion was unjustified and unnecessary. Given the care and attention, not to mention time, that I give to improving the policy compliance (especially NPOV) in articles, I found the allegations extremely offensive (particularly the one of being disruptive). Please retract it all immediately. Also, I would like to recommend that you read WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY to help you to improve your attitude towards, and relationships with, other editors. -- de Facto (talk). 12:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, you are sailing close to the wind now, please cease the intimidatory and inflammatory remarks and messages. -- de Facto (talk). 21:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Martinvl: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Alpha Quadrant, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Lies and damned lies

Martinvl, this post of yours is unacceptable.

You characterise my contributions to Wikipedia that you reverted as "rubbish", despite the fact that they generally re-emerge fully supported by community consensus.

You also falsely accused me of "trapping" you into a 3RR situation. The only role I played in that (you were reported by another editor after ignoring his warnings) was to defend myself against the absurd and unjust allegations you made about me there, in your own (bad faith) defence.

I am a patient and tolerant person by nature, and can accept a certain amount of "robust" interaction, even false, but good-faith allegations, but when it comes to the vindictive spreading of downright lies in an attempt to defend your indefensible actions, I reserve the right to draw the line. You have ignored my challenges over other examples of your disgraceful behaviou above, are you going to do the decent thing this time, and retract your allegations on JimWae's talkpage - or have I got to waste more time dealing with your vile spew? -- de Facto (talk). 12:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you standing by what you wrote on JimWae's page? -- de Facto (talk). 20:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice sought from Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

I'm sorry, but I've waited long enough for you to respond to the various posts I've made above related to civility issues I have with you. I've resorted to asking for advice as to how to deal with you at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#False accusations and general incivility. -- de Facto (talk). 16:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Basically you have tried my patience for a long time. There appear to be a number of gaps in your knowledge - yes we all have gaps in our knowledge, but in certain areas you appear not to know that you don't know and you do not acknowledge that maybe, just maybe sometimes other people might know a bit more about certain subjects than you do - you would do well to learn from them rather than casting doubt on perfectly valid objections. To make matters worse, you home page is completely annonymous - I know nothing about you - I don't know whether to treat you as a naïve sixteen-year old or as a person of maturity. I don't know what sort of things I can take for granted that you know, and quite frankly I am tired of having to cover all my bases when responding to you and having to respond to facile objections. If you go ahead with this compalint, I will have to raise a PoV complaint and it will be very strong, so will you withdraw your complaint and we will call it quits. Martinvl (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't make this easy to resolve with that rather arrogant and condescending sounding response. You don't need to know anything about me to be civil. You don't have to throw accusations around because you know nothing about me. It's certainly no excuse for not answering my many requests for retraction (or justification) of your allegations. I have made no complaint, just a request for advice as to how to handle the situation as I see it. If you address (and we resolve) the issues as itemised in the request, particularly the one on JimWae's talkpage, then I guess I/we can close that request as resolved somehow.

Remember: this is just a question of civility; nothing to do with article content, just how we can co-exist reasonably harmoniously. -- de Facto (talk). 15:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me deal with the first point that you raised: [9]. You deleted the phrase about children not being taught how to manipulate imperial measures. I don't know how old you are - I did my primary and secondary education in the 1950's and 1960's. During that period we were drilled with adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing pounds, shillings and pence, stones, pounds and ounces, gallons, quarts and pints and so on. We were also drilled in the handling of vulgar fractions. Decimal numbers were introduced at a comparitively late stage in my education (aboutthe age of 11 or 12). With the advent of decimalisation and metrication there was a big change in the way in which arithmetic (maths) was taught - all the teaching of how to manipulate non-decinal systems went out of the window as did the details of handling fractions and in its place, the manipulation of decinmal numbes was started two or three years earlier. If you are old enough to remember this, then you can see why I said that you were making a point; if you had a grounding in maths (A Level or better) what I write should have been self-evident to you and you can see why I said that you were making a point. If you are not of the generation that learnt how to handle the imperial system at school and you have not studied maths at A Level, then you should have been careful not to remove things of which you have littel understanding, ort at any rate be prepared to listen to those who do have some understanding.

By taking a very "purist" line and engaging me to either back down or to spend a lot of time looking up references for things that are common sense, yo uhave slowed down my contributions elsewhere in Wikipedia and you have also been disrupting my real life wit han extremely tedious approach. I trust now that you understand he problems that yo uhave been causing; also you might understand why adopting total annonymity has made it difficult to address issues. Martinvl (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Martin, being "right" (scare quotes intended) does not give an editor free pass to be rude, or to make things up. The particular charge against De Facto about trapping you in 3RR is groundless. Pfainuk warned you at 4RR, I reported you once you had crossed 6RR, and then we all begged you, along with admins and other users, to recognise your behavioural issues, which even now you pretend weren't there, in a failed attempt to avoid you getting blocked. De Facto simply disagreed with you, which isn't actually actionable. If you are as venerable as you claim to be, you might start wanting to emulate such a state.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, it all sounds like bluster to me. With regard to the first point you mentioned, of the several outstanding issues, you should know, personal experience doesn't stand the test of WP:VER. I got rid of unsupported content, you reverted me alleging that my edit was a WP:POINT - still with no support for the point - and have yet to explain why you think it was (which policy or guideline do you think I was frustrated with and trying to discredit?). What about the last of the points I want you to address - how do you justify making that post to JimWae's talkpage? -- de Facto (talk). 20:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:Citation overkill#Use of citations to prove an obvious point. DeFacto did not demand a citation, he just deleted the sentence that he did not like. As explained above, this suggested to me that he was making a point. A few weeks (days?) before that happenned (and probably unbeknown to VsevolodKrolikov), DeFacto had made some wholesale deletions to the article Stone (imperial mass) in order to promote his own point of view. Before we could come to a consensus, I had to talk hiom through UK legislation regarding the use of the stone and EU legislation which said where it could not be used; I also had to remind him that the Republic of Ireland was a member of the EU - and even then he still insisted on cutting half the lede away and he argued about including the fact that stone was 6.35 kg. This is but one example. Do you wonder that I have lost patience with him. Martinvl (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence that I disagreed with here and used the edit summary to explain why: "Removed as nothing in cited ref about not teaching that". And in in fact, the references show that you were wrong with your assertion. You reverted and didn't supply a supporting ref.

Previous edits to previous articles are irrelevant, and I disagree vehemently with your characterisation of them, but we can talk about them elsewhere if you like. Please now explain your post to JimWae's talkpage. -- de Facto (talk). 21:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Martinvl: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Alpha Quadrant, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at M23 motorway

Hello. I am unprotecting M23 motorway per a request on my talk page so that an editor can continue to make constructive edits to this page. I am writing this to you specifically as you were involved in a recent edit war on that page (which is not related to the request on my talk page), and I'm notifying you that any edit warring whatsoever in the next 2 weeks will be met with a block. Please don't take this as a license to edit war in the future.

Please do not interpret this as me taking anyone's specific side, or as accusing any specific editor either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Magog the Ogre

For the record, two editors were adding columns to a table and making a real dogs dinner of it, so I revoked both of them and have asked them to agree how to sort out the mess. If they continue to make a mess, I will come back to you and ask you to reprotect it. Martinvl (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable mass-reversions

Hello Martinvl, I see that you, without talkpage discussion and without any authority other than your own POV, have gone around all of the articles that I've edited in the last two or three hours - edits supported by reliable sources where necessary, and fully explained in the edit summaries - and summarily reverted all my edits. Can you please explain this bizarre and unacceptable behaviour? -- de Facto (talk). 18:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Martinvl: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom with outside discussion at Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#MedCab mediation offer

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Alpha Quadrant, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:A38DriverLocationSign_km415.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:A38DriverLocationSign_km415.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sreejith K (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sreejith2000

Thank you for your e-mail. If you go to the page you will see that that the permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system; it is available as ticket 2009071410068257 for users with an OTRS account. To confirm the permission, please contact OTRS volunteers at their noticeboard. (Extracted from the OTRS notice). If you need further information, please let me know. In addition, please note that I will not have access to my e-mails related to this system until after 25 December 2011 as I am travelling.

Martinvl (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Cape foot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transvaal (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) 10:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hindhead Tunnel

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Hindhead Tunnel". Thank you. --Mixsynth (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility issue

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Discussion (Units in specialist topics). Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

In particular, please refrain from nonsense ad hominen attacks, such as the unhelpful hostility you displayed toward User:de Facto. No one is required to provide any personal background information on their user pages here, and whether they have or have not to the satisfaction of your personal curiosity has no bearing on whether an opinion they express on an issue has merit. Your talk page displays a long history of other editors raising civility and disruptive editing issues with you, yet you do not appear to be participating much differently based on this quite unusually high level of negative feedback. Please think more carefully about how you approach such discussions in the future.

PS: Given that you are in formal mediation about editing related to the UK and metrics, you probably should not be engaging in flamey debate on this topic at MOS anyway, pending the outcome of your mediation. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish

I read your posting and appreicate your concern. Things between DeFacto and myself go back quite far. I don't know where to put them down to nievety, stupidity, pig-headedness or a combination of these. A few months ago DeFacto accused me of beign uncivil towards him. You can read about it [here]. He also has a track record of being very pushy about his own ideas - two quick examples are User talk:DeFacto#Repeated removal of road casualty data from Speed limit article here and User talk:DeFacto#POV pushing. Much of my own dealing with him can be found in his accusation of incivilty against me. Martinvl (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Active Resistance to Metrication

An article that you have been involved in editing, Active Resistance to Metrication, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Hoary (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Elfstedentocht

It's now looking as though there won't be a race this year. Per the discussion on the talk page, I moved the 2012 stuff to my userspace. If you wish to make use of the material so show the build-up to the race, it is available. I'll delete the page in my userspace in a week or so. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of primary destinations on the United Kingdom road network, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Antrim and Belfast Airport (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) 10:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet another civility issue

Martinvl, please retract the unfounded intimidatory ultimatum and threat that you left on my talkpage. If you believe that the banners I added to the poorly referenced sections of "Metrication in the United Kingdom" are unfounded, please explain your reasoning on the article's talkpage and I will review it there. By the way, I'm not sure that it would be wise to carry out your threat and add another attempt to get me blocked to your record, especially so soon after this recent failed, apparently malicious one and after the advice given to you by SMcCandlish in this message on your talkpage. -- de Facto (talk). 11:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Given your recent behaviour on the MOSNUM and Hindhead Tunnel articles, I believe that these banners were added in bad faith, so please remove them - at least one of them is totally unfounded. Martinvl (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

1. What recent "behaviour" are you alluding to? Please characterise it in your own words.
2. Which one (of the four) banners do you claim was "totally unfounded"?
3. You appear to accept that three of the banners were founded then - do you?

-- de Facto (talk). 12:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Beste Martin,

Wil jij een beetje op het artikel van Friso letten? Ik ben hier niet zo actief. En nu krijg je allerlei geruchten. Dat zij een ambassadeur van de orgaandonatie is is compete nonsens. Ze had alleen een twitterberichtje geplaats over een televisie programma waarin een vriendin voorkwam die een niertransplantatie gehad had. Dezelfde kolder heb ik al twee keer van Wikipedia NL verwijdert.

(Ik denk dat je dit wel kunt lezen in het Nederlands....;). Vriendelijke groet, Sir Statler (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sir Salter,

You are right, I can read Dutch, but having learnt Afrikaans at school destroyed my chances of writing in Dutch (see my Talk Page). I have bookmarked the artcile and I will keep an eye on what is happening.

Vriendelijke groet Martinvl (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ik begrijp dat Martin. Dat moet uiterst verwarrend zijn. De talen lijken erg op elkaar maar verschillen ook erg.

Als je hier kijkt zie je dat er enorm veel hits zijn. (40.000!) Het is dus bijzonder gevaarlijk dit soort roddel die zich vooral via de sociale media zich verspreid heeft als waarheid neer te zetten. Ik vermoed dat in de wereld (het is internationaal nieuws) heel wat kranten Wikipedia als bron gebruiken.. En voor je het weet is dit een waarheid. nu circuleerd er weer een roddel over een lege accu. Het beste is denk ik hier te kijken, wij houden de boel scherp in de gaten en spreken tenminste Nederlands... Vriendelijke groet, Sir Statler (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Metric Martyrs

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Metric Martyrs. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Particulary your recent edits in the 'Pardon campaign' section which gave the impression of a greater scope than actually exists for the regulations. More discussion can be found on the article's talkpage. Thank you. -- de Facto (talk). 12:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Metrication in the United Kingdom, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Pontificalibus (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pontificalibus

I have noted your comments. I have had a long run-in with Defacto - he is cetainly not a new editor and has had a contraversial past - for example User talk:DeFacto/Archive 3#Repeated removal of road casualty data from Speed limit article (with which I had no invovlement),

Vandalism is defined as "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". In his summary of the "Legal Requirements" DeFactio has deliberately watered down what the law actually says. I have drawn his attention to it, but he has refused to discuiss the matter, but threw insults at me. This is compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. Given his past conduct, it is difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, I notice that you removed a large part of the description of the lede photograph of teh artcile in question. May I draw to your attention:

• Electrical units have always been based on metric units.
• It is virtually impossible to buy a metric-only set of domestic scales on the high street - I have tried. Dial models have dual scales and the few balances that are sold (eg at Argos) have imperial weights only (metric available for an additional cost).
• On the other hand, go to your local garden centre and look at the thermometers there - a significant number (over half the models in my local garden centre) are in degrees Celsius only.

Martinvl (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, please do not misrepresent my actions. In Metrication in the UK, as in the case of the other discussion you mention above (which as you weren't involved in, you know nothing about) - but noticed that there has been controversy in (so appear to hope that a bit of mud from there might stick and help your campaign here), I had been removing one-sided POVy OR/SYNTH to try to achieve a more neutral and reliably supported article. -- de Facto (talk). 09:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto, you have made four changes in the space of 15 minutes. Please use your sandbox. Martinvl (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Changes where? -- de Facto (talk). 10:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here, today, at 09:55, 09:56, 10:07 and 10:11. Martinvl (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarifications. There had been no replies, so what's the problem? -- de Facto (talk). 17:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning: March 2012

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

To whoever initiated this message - I have now formally asked for assistance regarding incivility by User:DeFacto. The page inquestion formed the basis of my request. Martinvl (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As if you didn't know who had placed the message. Do you know how the 'history' function works? I tried to get your attack page speedy deleted. Unfortunately the admin who dealt with it didn't realise how misleading the content was or your malicious intent, so let it stay. -- de Facto (talk). 17:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Metric Martyrs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Crown and King John

Metrication in the United Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Press

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification of DRN submission

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Metrication in the United Kingdom". Thank you. -- de Facto (talk). 19:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is a discussion on ANI about a topic you have been involved in relating to DeFacto. You are welcome to bring your experience to that discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. When you recently edited Hindhead Tunnel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Devils Punchbowl and Digger (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) 10:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy note to you!

I don't mind you re-indenting my comment: you've got good reason, unlike some people recently... I have however probably re-broken it by posting some new musing that overlapped with your most recent post. Go see! Steve Hosgood (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I am currently drafting a response. Martinvl (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Now, there's interesting. Why would an anonymous user called 212.183.128.124 suddenly pop up and fiddle with the white-space in the article? Who do we know (who's currently banned off wikipedia in general) who would persistently rearrange the commas, and move other people's posts around? :-) Steve Hosgood (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Steve whoever fiddled the white space did so from an IP address registered with Vodaphone, London. Martinvl (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If he suddenly (out of the blue) turns up on "Hindhead Tunnel" you'll know who he is! Steve Hosgood (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There are about 20 postings from this IP address - all but one of them vandalism, though the vandalism in question was not DeFacto's style. Martinvl (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It would seem deFacto has managed to win himself an indefinite ban - for sockpuppetting now. Last week he was still arguing with the admins about his "unfair block". He certainly pissed off a few of them in epic style! Steve Hosgood (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of Hindhead Tunnel BTW, I see that some of deFacto's arguments centred on his insistence that UK articles should be imperial-first, (mis)citing WP:MOSNUM and other "sources" for backup on that. In case you're interested, last summer a "featured article" on the front page of Wikipedia was River Parrett. I read it (because it was there) and immediately opened a thread on its talk page to complain about the pedantic imperial-first (even imperial only) style of the page. I was firmly rebuked off by the page's authors who claimed that in order to get "featured page" status, an article has to be one set of units or the other, and since the early records of the river used imperial (or Queen Anne) units, then the rest had to be like that too. I disagreed, but couldn't sway them, even though WP:MOSNUM doesn't seem to say any such thing. I concluded that left the way it was, the article looked like it belonged in Steampunkopedia! Go read - it looks like it was copied as-is from Encyclopedia Brittanica 1911 despite actually being up-to-date! Truly awful - deFacto would have loved it. My final comment on the subject is still only the penultimate comment on the talk page if you look at its history. Steve Hosgood (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your note. If you look at MOSNUM, you will see a note about changing the units of measure for changes' sake, but if you are doing a major overhaul, then it is appropriate to change units. His argument about the original units being in non-metric is ill-founded, moreover it is likely that certain flows etc have changed since the original readings were taken which might give rise for a major overhaul.Martinvl (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You didn't...

...honestly call the ISP/technical people at NAS, did you? Please please tell me you didn't (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I am still awaiting a response to this question (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I did, I said so in my initial posting. I have not persued the matter any further though. Martinvl (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You know that by doing so, you should be indefinitely blocked, right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please point me to the reference that says so - my line with their technical people was "There is a problem - how can I get our technical people to sort the matter without impacting any legitimate use that you might have?". This is a special case because the perpetrators of the trouble were autistic. BTW, I telephoned them - a local call for me, but an international call from Canada. Martinvl (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you a formal representative of Wikipedia? Are you as a minimum an administrator? Have you even checked back on ANI for the results of your actions? Any attempts to contact an employer, etc are regularly met with indef blocks (see for example User:Ecoleetage) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I am not a formal represenatative of Wikipedia which is why the tone of my discussion with the National Autistic Society was one of "What information can I pass back to the adminstrators?" The approach that I took is nothing more than I would do in real life.

On rereading the ANI, I see that User:NebY wrote <<As far as I can tell, the National Autistic (sic) Society doesn't have "patients" and would not use such terms as "suffering from autism".>> Their IT department told me that patients do have access to their network. This negates a good deal of the discussion that followed. Martinvl (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The issues at hand here have to do with a lot more than simply whether the exact term "patients" is applicable. The fact is that your actions are tantamount to believing that an entire class of people are not worthy of editing Wikipedia, and actively taking unilateral action to ensure that they cannot (despite having no warrant for doing so based on Wikipedia policy). Kansan (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit unfair - in the original thread, Martinvl only investigated an active vandal and proposed a block for that vandal. It was User:Hersfold who (prematurely, in my opinion) suggested soft-blocking the entire NAS. Nobody proposed blocking autistic people from editing Wikipedia, and I should hope no one seriously ever would. I was however disturbed by Martinvl's characterisation of autistic people as people who "will not respond to normal reasoning," which is absurd. I've known many people with high-functioning autism who are better at reasoning than the average person. Dcoetzee 05:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I worded it overly strongly as well; so striking my comments accordingly. Kansan (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In describing autistic people I was referring in particular to those undergoing treatment at the centre one of whom was vandalising the articles M11 motorway, M25 motorway, A1(M) motorway, M20 motorway and M23 motorway articles. I did indeed leave a request on the user talk page User talk:217.204.11.194#Motorway Junction Lists and made a comment in one of the changes. Both were ignored. As I mentioned earlier to Penyulap, I should have left a few more comments when reverting changes as the changes were not obvious vandalism.

May I request that there be a standard notice on IP type users pages that are linked to specific corportions which give guidance to editors (and not just admins) on how to deal with vandalism. Martinvl (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Now we're beyond the original problem with you contacting an ISP. Now you're getting into something even more distasteful: the suggestion that someone on the Autism Spectrum edits differently than a "neurotypical" person. That's pretty horrific (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Could we please stop this discussion. I have contacted Bwilkins privately. Martinvl (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully final point: Wikipedia takes seriously its responsibility towards editors to ensure that random people are not calling their service providers/employers/etc. Doing so is a serious invasion of their privacy, and we must protect those editors from such action, as has happened many times in the past. At this point, you should have been indefinitely blocked until the project saw that future situations would not recur. However, I'll take the opposite tack: please confirm that you will not take such action on your own ever again, or else I will have no choice but to protect those editors via a block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Having seen that my actions are viewed differently to what I would have expected in the real life workplace, I undertake not to make such an action on my own again.

In order to prevent anybody else doing this, may I suggest that the last sentence on the "Attention" box on the Talk Page be amended from:

"In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts will be made to contact the National Autistic Society to report abuse."

to

"In the event of on-going vandalism from this address, please contact an administrator via WP:ANI and they will contact the National Autistic Society to report abuse."

Martinvl (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. When you recently edited Metric system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Are (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) 11:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

New SI definitions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dalton and National Physical Laboratory

Schwalbach am Taunus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Juno and Mercury

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Kelvin

I note that you corrected an IP in Kelvin. I don't think there is any inconsistency in the definition, but it needs to be read carefully. I tried to explain it to the IP at User talk:96.32.245.124. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi David, the point that I was making to the user was that Wikipedia was not in error. Maybe we coudllook at rewording thingds so that the asmbiguity falls away. Martinvl (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been discussed a few times over the years at Talk:Kelvin#273.15_vs._273.16, and from time to time errors have been introduced by confused editors, and then removed. I can't think off-hand of any rewording that would make it clearer, but any suggestions would be welcome. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded it. Throw it out if you think it rubbish or OTT. Martinvl (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Well done! - David Biddulph (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Martinvl (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning

Caution: you risk breaking the WP:3RR rule at Metrication of British transport. 94.197.146.76 (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You were warned; you did it again; I have now reported you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. 94.197.100.97 (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 94.197.n1.n2 (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Martinvl, WP:BOOMERANG struck again. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop it, or attempt to justify it

You are going around making false accusations about me, associating me with another, apparently banned, editor. Please stop it. Or do you think that you have some evidence to support that claim? If you do think that, please state that so-called "evidence" here so that I can defend myself. Thank you. 94.197.49.214 (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of sock-puppets. However, one or more edits you labeled as sock-puppetry, such as the edit at Talk:Metrication of British transport, are not considered such under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a strict definition of the word "sock-puppet", and mislabeling edits as sock-puppetry is offensive. Please read Wikipedia:sockpuppet for more information on what is and is not considered sock-puppetry. Thank you. 94.197.49.214 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

S-ttl/claim

Thanks for your patience with the extra lap here. Hope it won't get in your way too much. Cheers, --joe decker^{talk to me} 07:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joe

No problem - I have taken the liberty of copying a discussion that I had elewhere onto the Project Page. Martinvl (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I'm off to sleep here, but will try and check back, don't hesitate to give me a poke if this for any reason slides off my radar. --joe decker^{talk to me} 07:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Strawberries and sockpuppetry

I see you had to revert User:Jilllipede's attempt to re-add the Asda strawberries. Note the number of L's in that user name and their lack of edit history - a certain somebody's idea of a joke, I reckon! Jillipede (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I am 99% sure that we are dealing with our friend DeFacto (who is now banned from Wikipedia). Martinvl (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tree start/Documentation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am happy for you to delete this page. It will make my life easuier as I was picking up where another editor left off. I will notify him. Martinvl (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Before I saw your note above, I had encountered this page in the list of speedy deletion candidates and decided that, as it was clearly not an encyclopedia article, you had probably placed it in the main encyclopedia space by mistake. I therefore "userfied" it - moved into a sub-page in your user space - at User:Martinvl/Tree start/Documentation. If you don't want it, just put {{db-user}} at the top, and someone will delete it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Work done in vain?

Looks like someone is trying to undo the progress we were making with the templates:

Nomination for deletion of Template:TreeList end

Template:TreeList end has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. UnQuébécois (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

TreeView Implementation

Hello, It appears that this has been implemented, so we can now move forward. Did we come to some agreement with the template naming? I wasn't sure if my slight sarcasm came through on the discussion page! Do you need/want help with the documentation? --UnQuébécois (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we have another interested party, with some naming ideas. Template talk:Tree view--UnQuébécois (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I have just noticed that. It looks like the templates that I had in my user space were moved (which explains why I could nto find them). I have an replacement elsewhere in my user space (needs a bit of tidying up) to replace the French royalty - I have chosen to show the descendants of Henry VII up to James VI/I. Needs a bit of tidying up which I will do over the weekend (if I can find time).

Regards Martinvl (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like we didn't need to do anything as another user decided to come in and implement it his way.--UnQuébécois (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have started adding the Tudor example. Martinvl (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You might like to do some tidying up -real life is getting in the way.

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited George I of Great Britain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elizabeth Stuart (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) 14:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your repeated unjustified mass reversions must stop

Martin, have you become the owner of Wikipedia? Or otherwise, why are you going around and removing wholesale, the valid and fully summarised contributions made by other editors and reverting content to your own last favored version, and without the courtesy of a reasoned summary of your actions? Shufflee (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Metrication of British transport for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Metrication of British transport 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/Metrication of British transport 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 template from the top of the article. Kahastok talk 11:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Kilometres per hour". Thank you. --Ornaith (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings from Livermore, CA

Hello, Martinvl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GaramondLethe 19:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Future changes to km/h

Hi Martinvl,

I'm keeping a list of changes I'd like to make to km/h in my sandbox. You might want to start thinking about changes or additions you'd like to see. While I'd certainly welcome comments, it might be best to put those off until we finish up with the dispute resolution. Just wanted to give you a "heads up".

Thanks,

GaramondLethe 09:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for your patience and perseverance so far with km/h. I do think this process will ultimately result in a better article, but for now, enjoy your beer and, at your leisure, drop by talk:kilometres per hour and contribute as the spirit[s] move[s] you. GaramondLethe 03:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Metrication of British Transport

Hello Martinvl, I am sure that you are editing the above article in good faith, but please be careful not to undo the work of other editors attempting to clean this article. As you can see from the discussion on its talk page, much of the content has been criticised as infringing many of the Wikipedia policies. Please help to put thing right by offering new material for discussion before adding it, and certainly don't blanket-revert the changes already made without firest reaching agreement on the talk page. Please be careful as disruption of this cleanup exercise, or continued edit-warring might get you into hot water! Best, Pother (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary you are removing a large amount of good material by your over-zealous interpretation of WP: PRIMARY. Removing large chunks of material as you have been doing makes it impossible to discuss each item. Moreover, since you have requested that this article be merged with Metrication in the United Kingdom, it is the height of bad faith to start stripping out material before there is a consensus. Also, remember, if there is a lack of consensus, the status quo remains.

Also, you were so fast to undo the last bout of changes I do not believe that you actually read them. Martinvl (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If the material is that good, where are the secondary sources supporting it? You can add each item to a section on the talk page, and we can discuss its merits there. This constant edit-warring will get you nowhere. Pother (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That will be Hell's own job to administer. We need a top-down approach - what does the article as a whole look like and then narrow down to specifics. Furthermore, I have never seen your suggested approach being done before on Wikipedia (or anywhere else).

I don't know what you do outside Wikipedia - I have had a career in software engineering - one of the most important aspects of any engineering design is to start with an outline of what you want to build and to refine it in a stepwise manner. In this respect, building a Wikipedia article is no different to designing a piece of engineering. Martinvl (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a top-down approach is optimal for distributed, volunteer efforts (the linux kernel being largest example). Top-down works really well when you know where you're going and you're paying people to get there. Making that model work in this environment might be possible, but you're setting yourself up to have to persuade people to accept fewer large changes rather than many small changes (and more surface area means more drag). Yes, there's a greater administrative cost for managing lots of small changes. But there's also an administrative cost for having edits reverted and having to spend time in DRN. GaramondLethe 07:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What I am saying is that rathern than keeping hoards of stuff in limbo, the normal way in Wikipedia is to discuss what is in the artcile otherwise, in the absence of a chairman, nothing will ever get done. 08:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

<grin> Well, I have "hoards of stuff in limbo" at km/h that's staying in limbo until you say otherwise, and I'd much rather dump it in to the article and discuss it piecemeal there. (Yes, I understand the two situations are not entirely alike.) GaramondLethe 08:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And look at the amount of discussion we are having over one section. Now multiply that by half a dozen sections. We would never get anywhere. Martinvl (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A careless edit, or another dishonest edit summary

Hello Martinvl. Myself and User:Kahastok have just been editing the Metrication of British Transport article. Here are diffs of our most recent work:

• me
• Kahastok
• me
• Kahastok

You then came along with this edit, and reverted all the above edits in one go, with the edit summary: "Reinstated material removed by Ornaith - See Talk Page".

There are serious problems with that edit summary:

• You didn't mention in the edit summary that you also reverted all the edits of Kahastok
• You haven't mentioned on the talk page why you reverted my edit to the shipping section

Please revert your own edit, and go to the talk page and engage in the discussion about the article content. If you don't, I will report you for disruption of the BRD process. With your track-record, you would probably be in serious trouble. Ornaith (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith - If you hadn't just removed large amount of data, then I woudl have left Kahastok's changes where they were. You had better applogise to Kahastok and arrange with him how to restore his changes. Meanwhile DON'T DELETE LARGE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL. Martinvl (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments in South Africa

Dear WikiProject South Africa Wikipedians

This is an urgent call from Wikimedia South Africa. We are currently working hard on the South African side of the exciting international photographic competition, Wiki Loves Monuments [10]. We have been planning to make this national competition really take off, but to do so, we need your help! The competition starts on the 1st September, and we need your help now! If you are interested in being part of or can help the Wiki Loves Monuments national organising team, then please join here [ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2012_in_South_Africa]. If you have limited time, but want to help out at an upload marathon at a heritage site near you, please then contact either Lourie [louriepieterse@yahoo.com] or Isla [islahf@africacentre.net]. We look forward to hearing from you!"

Kind regards, Lourie

Sent by Lucia Bot in 14:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

In case you didn't see my reply to you on my talkpage, I'll reiterate the main points of it here for you.

Your abuse of the {{BLP unsourced}} template in the Michael Shrimpton article certainly counts towards your 3RR tally, and your covert removal of references from the "References" section in the same article may indeed lead to more serious charges. Perhaps you should review your own actions before throwing your weight around, and before you get a WP:3RR or even a WP:ANI filed against you for them. Canepa (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, the proper tag would be the {refimproveblp} - there is one legit source that mentions the subject.

Canepa, self posted resumes are not suitable general sources/references nor appropriate external links.

You two should stop bickering like an old married couple and maybe consider a voluntary interaction ban before one gets placed on you. Wikipedia is a big place, you dont need to follow each other around poking at each other. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Martin, just in case you didn't notice my comment at WP:3RRNB, it bears repeating. Be very careful of your own edits to the article. Technically, any change to the article constitutes a revert. I counted three on your part in the last 24 hours. Admins may cut you some slack if it appears you are editing collaboratively, but you have to be conscious of what you're doing and the risks you take. Also, don't shout in edit summaries. If you can't keep your cool, then don't do anything - always safer and usually better. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23,

I see your point. However there is another matter - the page view statistics of this article show between 3.5k and 4k hits per day on weekdays and about 1k hits per day on weekends. Moreover if you load the opening paragraph into the Google search box and do a search, you will see that over a hundred sites that have that exact text. In other words, in the reader community this is a high-profile article. We cannot afford to have it plastered with unneccessary "citation needed" flags and various banners. Please check these statistics out yourself and you will see what I mean. Also check out which users are copying it. In view of this I think that you will understand that I was trying to keep a stable high-profile article stable. Maybe we need to have some mechanism to do this, or if WP:ANI is the appropriate way to do it, then to regularise how this should be done without users seeing any in-fighting. Martinvl (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

if you feel so badly about the tags destroying the pristine appearance article and its clones, then provide sources so that there is nothing to tag. but you cannot make someone else do the work that you are not willing to do. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If a tag is needed, it is needed. If a banner template tag is need, it is needed. We can't tailor our policies based on the possible reactions by readers. One solution is, as RedPen says, find sources for the material. Another is if the material is unsourced and challenged, you can remove it, although you should exercise care in doing so, particularly if it's been in place for some time and never tagged as being unsourced. You can only remove tags if you give a valid reason for doing so, and saying it doesn't look good isn't a valid reason. Finally, just because Triomio was blocked doesn't mean you have carte blanche to revert his edits. There's already been a complaint about that at the noticeboard.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For what little it's worth, I looked at a couple of the requests to provide citations in the lede and found them adequately cited in the body of the article. The kindest construction I could come up with was that Triomio had not understood the citations (which are relatively technical). I expect in a couple of days I'll get a chance to ask Triomio again if this is the case. GaramondLethe 04:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 82.132.249.199 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

User page bug?

Hi Martin, I'm a bit a bit surprised about you hunting bugs on Triomio's user page. Would you mind telling me the purpose? De728631 (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I kinda wondered about that as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I mentioned Triomio in a posting and when I checked the Wikilink I had a strange page. However, when I went to his talk page and then moved onto his userpage, I had the normal blank page. Since I have an IT background, it looked like a startup problem (page creation aborted?), so I created a page in a clean manner. Martinvl (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that makes sense to De, but I can't follow it. What do you mean by a "strange page"? What exactly was the wikilink? My view is it would have been more appropriate to report it as a problem rather than for you to create someone else's user page. I'll wait for De to chime in.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to me either although sometimes we do get the occasional server overload with strange-looking message pages. Do you have a diff of the posting where you mentioned Triomio? And yes, actually we're not supposed to create pages in another editor's userspace at all, so I suggest you leave Triomio a talk page message to explain this. De728631 (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It depended on whether I entered the page from the search box or from the Talk page. I have expanded the explantation. Martinvl (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you expanded the explanation on his user page but you didn't leave a message on his Talk page. Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to leave a message on Triomio's Talk page pointing him here and asking whether he wants to edit his user page or if he would like me to delete it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Goods from bulk

Hi Ehrenkater,

I have added a picture to the article to answer your questions regarding the "sale of loose goods or goods from bulk". Woudl you be happy if I removed your example about the cheese in the lede paragraph. Maybe we could change the wording of the picture caption. Martinvl (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The cheese example was your example, not mine. I was and am concerned that the expression "sale of goods from bulk" is not clear. If you feel you have a better explanation or example of this than the cheese, please do substitute it. ---Ehrenkater (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Court Moor School

Hello, Martinvl you have new messages on Court Moor School's Talk page. Unita01 (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Olympic Marathon Course, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages T46, T12 and T54 (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) 09:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of dispute resolution discussion on Pendulum

Hi. I've started a Dispute resolution discussion about the big Equation Controversy on Pendulum. Feel free to join in. Cheers --Chetvorno^TALK 19:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

km/h turned out pretty well, actually.

Hello, Martinvl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added GaramondLethe 04:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A failed experiment?

Regarding your reversing of a See Also link to the Hex River tunnels in the Cape Gauge article, please clarify "failed experiment".
I added it there since the Hex River pass was THE reason why the Cape Government converted from Standard to Cape Gauge. The fact that most railways in Africa still use Cape Cauge can therefore be directly attributed to this Pass.
André Kritzinger 11:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi André

Please look at the result of your changes - to make it easy, click here. You will see that the changes you made did not have the desired effect. Martinvl (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It certainly didn't! Late night editing can be risky, it seems....
André Kritzinger 12:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a few too many Castles? (or was it Lion?) Martinvl (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

More like Cape Red at my age. Besides, Lion was taken off the market when SAB went international big-time.
I think it was a server issue. The Seacom cable down West Africa is probably busted again since the Interwebs have been extremely slow the past few weeks. A page will appear loaded and I'd click on it, and then it suddenly loads further and the click ends up in the wrong spot. Must have hit the <<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>> button that way just before I saved my preview.
André Kritzinger 21:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Trying to save this reply for the FIFTH time now! André Kritzinger 21:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

André, I often cut and paste the required paragraph into WORD or Notepad, work on it there, paste it in my sanbox to check it out and then paste it onto the original article. This minimises the number of edit operation that need to use the West African cable and also gives you an on-going back-up. Regards Martinvl (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I always work in Word. But I still need the cable to preview. Even in the sandbox. André Kritzinger 11:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Square kilometre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westgate (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) 12:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Image for Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute

I noticed that the image was for the USS Lexington from 1776 not from 1825, so I updated the images and the files to be consistent. I could not find an image of the USS Lexington from 1825. --Zeete (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zeete,

I checked the records - you are quite right, the USS Lexington (1776) was in fact decommissioned and replaced another vessel of teh same name in 1825. I will undo my reversion . Martinvl (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Martinvl. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 15:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to inform you, but I have deleted File:UniversityOfNatal CoatOfArms.jpg because it failed our criteria for fair use. Essentially, coats of arms can always be created under a free license since their description is not copyrighted. See the use of blazons in heraldry. Any individual depiction of arms is however copyrightable by the artist unless they waive such rights. I suggest you have a look at Commons and check the regular contributors of coats of arms over there. They may be willing to create an svg image of this particular coat of arms with a free license. And that would also be immune against opacity. De728631 (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Outline of the metric system (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Acceleration due to gravity and Power

East Falkland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mount Pleasant

Kilometres per hour (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to League

Metre Convention (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National Physical Laboratory

Metric system (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Acceleration due to gravity

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Invitation for a Wikimedia UK training event 27-28 October

Hope you are well. Because of your great involvement with Wikipedia training so far and outreach I believe it would be worth sending you a direct invitation to the next training session that Wikimedia UK is organising for our volunteers. Please have a look here. As a thank you we would of course pay all the expenses and organise your accommodation. It's a very highly valued training and a great opportunity to develop your skills! Let me know if you are able to attend - would be great to see you there. Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC) (daria.cybulskawikimedia.org.uk)

Test 86.148.106.137 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Pendulum and Pendulum (mathematics) talk

Hello, Martinvl. You have new messages at Maurice Carbonaro's talk page.
Message added 08:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gallon

Why did you insert the statement "legally defined" if you don't have the legal definition to support this and you know you don't have the citation?

"(Undid revision 522241853 by Cantaloupe2 (talk) The US gallon is legally defined as 231 cu in - just the citation is not there.)" Please prove it with relevant US statute or remove it. You restored it and it is challenged, therefore the burden of proof is on you WP:PROVEITCantaloupe2 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It is in the cited document. Please read the section called "introduction". Martinvl (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International System of Units, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stilb (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) 12:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Lady Bullock

Hi! You might want to check the article about Pippa Middleton. The IP keeps inserting that trivia there as well. I truly wonder what that person's thinking. A second cousin of a grandmother? I have yet to meet all my own second cousins, let alone those of my parents and grandparents. Surtsicna (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

M48

Good morning Martinvl,
I was delighted to switch on this morning and find someone else with common sense.
Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 08:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gareth. Although most of Chris Marshall's stuff was pretty good (his site is now frozen), I think that this one needed a review. Martinvl (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Have a good week! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 22:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Mark Bristow (businessman)

Thanks for adding his school information. I thought I'd heard of Martinvl somewhere - we were both at the Wikimedia London training weekend last month! Edwardx (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It was a very good school - I went there! Martinvl (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Just the thing this time of the morning. Or coffee, if you prefer. Edwardx (User talktalk) 09:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Hello, Martinvl. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Road Junction Lists

Hello! I seem to be back from the dead I guess! :-) Could you possibly bring me up to speed on where we stand with the Road Junction Lists these days? Are we using km/miles, or just miles? Are we using coords, or not? I've tried reading the discussions while I've been away, but it's a nightmare trying to work anything out! Ta :-) Jeni ^(talk) 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jeni

Welcome back

Coords - I have not been involved, someone else has. The Americans allowed our junction lists to be used as a trial which then petered out. I am indifferent to them, except that they clutter things up.

Distances - WP:RJL says that we use both miles and kilometres. Kilometres are, in my view, mandatory because that driver location signs and distance marker posts are in kilometres and since the Department of Transport is not willing publish things on the internet etc, but by putting the posts in place, they are effectively publishing their data. (The Welsh Departmernt of Transport did in fact publish the coordinates of all the driver location signs on their motorways and trunk roads,m but they havd since removed them from the internet, possibly when I cited them on the A55 article. I have collated a large number of kilometre markers. I personally know the location of many motorway exits that I use in terms of their associated driver location signs. I have not added any miles to the road junction lists because I believe it to be counter-productive. How do we know that the numbers on the driver location signs are really kilometres? I have heard that on some roads, the distances have been fudged to avoid discontinuities, so doing mile convesions are counter-productive. However, given that the WP:RJL says that both should be used, I will not stop anybody else from including them.

In both cases, the use of coordinates and of miles column will cramp things up, so in my view both are optional extras.

The lists in the US, at least those using the templates, display both miles and kilometers. Our templates are set up to display the miles to the left and convert the input into kilometers in a column to the right. There are exceptions: California uses postmiles which can't be converted into a meaningful metric equivalent, and some roads like Interstate 19 and those in Puerto Rico are marked in km. The extra column takes up very little width in the tables.

We still aren't using coordinates at all, preferring to use KML files, which when used with {{Attached KML}} provide a line on a map, instead of disconnected dots. The line from the KML can be seen in the WikiMiniAtlas in the upper right corner, or displayed on Google or Bing Maps. If/when other mapping services support KML display, they'll be added, and Google already is using our KMLs to display summary information about American roads in their search results. Imzadi 1979 → 21:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you playing at?

Please stop following me around and please stop undoing almost every damn edit that I make. Dainful (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not Brains' bitter.

The United Kingdom is now looking much better, thanks to your input.  –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 10:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Cheers! and if it is a full litre, Gezuntheit! Martinvl (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Croeso! –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 10:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Which I assume is Welsh (I don't know why :-) ) Martinvl (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Outstanding questions

Hello Martinvl,

In case you haven't seen them there, here are four questions I asked you about the comments you left on my talk page. Perhaps you could help me improve my familiarity of Wikipedia protocol by answering them for me please:

• What shouldn't I be touching?
• Why shouldn't I be touching whatever it is?
• Why would you be using words of one syllable?
• Is there a Wikipedia test or exam that I need to take to see if I have the appropriate artistic skills required to be allowed to apply WP:IMAGE? Curatrice (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Curatrice,

When I wrote these lines, you were moiving from article to article making the same change - in particulare reducing ther size of the image in the lede. I saw from your contributuon history that you did not have much experience of Wikipeida and I was following you reinstating, in particular, image sizes.

There is an old saying "If it ain't broke, don't mend it". You need to be a little more discerning in trying to mend things that are not broken - in particular, don't apply recommendations unless you are actually mending something - an unfortunate by-proiduct of applying changes for the sake of it is that in "fixing" something, one can inadvertently introduce an error elsewhere. It is unfortunate that when people make a "quick fix", they only make a "quick check" that it worked.

There is no Wikpeida test regarding artisitic skills - just be aware that unless you have skills regarding proportions etc, it is best not to mess around with other people's layouts, espcially if you are blindly applying recommednations.

I am not decrying the recommendations - firstly, they are a good starting point when you are laying out a page, but ther are inconsistencies and sometimmes contradictions in various recommendations, so be careful.

Finally, don't leap into something too quickly - be cautious, see what the reaction is - if you have misunderstood something and repeat teh same changes too many times, you will piss off whoever sorts out the mess. Martinvl (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And the one syllable remark? Curatrice (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, happy new year - perhaps we can enjoy a more productive and congenial relationship this year! Secondly, are you going to get the new year off to a good start by answering the one about the one syllable please? Curatrice (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A request

I just noticed the SVG map you created for the comparison of the UK and the Falklands. It looks really good, and is much better than the PNG I compiled from OpenStreetMap.

Is it possible for you to do an image like this with all of the overseas territories on the same scale, like the ones already created for France and The Netherlands? This map, I feel would be very useful in the British Overseas Territories article.

Many thanks

--RaviC (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I can give it a try, but after Christmas. Martinvl (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi RaviC,

First of all, compliments of the season.

I have done a preliminary chaeck to see how fasiuble it would be to do a .svg diagram as requested by you. The main problem is that Wikimedia COmmons only has .svg maps for 6 of the 14 territoroes in question. Ideally, all maps should be of the same format and the absence of the raw materials makes things difficult. All that I can do really is to suggest that you continue with your .png map.

Regards Martinvl (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, hope you had a good holiday.

Would this svg file work? The territories are all in the same format, but not in the same size ratio.

If not, don't worry about it, I will continue with the .png that I have made a start on.

Kind regards

--RaviC (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi RaviC,

Thanks for the message.

I had a look as the file that you delievered and it is perfect starting material. I have given the matter some thought and I think that it might well be appropriate to have three different scales - the main one being the UK and the larger BoTs, the second, at a scale of 20% the first showing the British Antarctic Territory andionlgside the UK. I will position this in the "Noth Sea" of the first map. The third, probably at 500% the scale of the first would show the smallest territories against the Isle of Wight. All would have a scale.

Any comments?

Regards Martinvl (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, that seems like a great idea. Placing the smaller ones alongside the Isle of Wight is a great way to compare them to the UK without them being almost invisible. --RaviC (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

OK - I will work on it over the next week or two. Martinvl (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

3RR Warning (Lists of British inventions)

This is a formal WP:3RR warning.

You have now made 3 reversions ([11], [12], [13]) to that article within 24 hours. There is a discussion about that claim on the talk page, please participate in it. MeasureIT (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop disrupting an SPI

Your actions here are unacceptable. You cannot simply rearrange views like you did here to suit your own agenda. Others have contributed in context, and you corrupted the whole sense of the discussion. It is not fair to all those others concerned. MeasureIT (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

3RR Warning (History of the metric system)

This is a formal WP:3RR warning. MeasureIT (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

SPI

No, it's fine. I was mostly annoyed at his edit summary, which is typical of this person. When I left the note on his page, I knew he'd come back and say that you had moved the comments in the first place so he was innocent etc, so I criticised you in the note as well. I don't have a problem with moving the comments, just with him spouting bad faith all the time. Now that I've left that note, he has specifically not got any permission to move my comments, so he can't do it again. Thanks for the ANI heads up, cheers :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you (Bretonbanquet) mean by "so he can't do it again"? I never moved any of your comments, that was Martinvl. I restored them to their original positions. MeasureIT (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeasureIT (talk • contribs) 13:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments at SPI

Regarding this, why are you even bothering to speak to him? What you're writing will have zero effect on the way the SPI case is handled. You're just wasting your time. You're free to do so if you wish, I just thought I'd point that out. (FYI in England if you think a kid is lying you might say "you're telling porkies" to him) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at History of the metric system. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I notice that User:MeasureIT has requested that his block be lifted. May I draw to attention the following:

• I did not actually make a fourth reversion during the 24 hour period.
• MeasureIT failed to give me advance warning that he was placing a 3RR notice, just as

• he failed to notify me that he was this issue on the Fringe Theory notice board,
• he failed to notify me that he was raising the issue on the Original research notice board
• he failed to notify me that he was the issue on the Conflict of interest notice board.

• MeasureIT’s record on this article, such as the tone of language used in this edit had much to be desired, especially when he stated that he was restoring NPOV.

In short, since MeasureIT was doing all that he could to needle me, I was the victim and he the perpetrator. If you see fit to lift his ban I request that mine be lifted simulatanteously.}

Decline reason:

This block is not about another user. This block is about you edit warring. You have not substantially addressed this in your unblock request. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks for advice, in particular this subsection. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Questions raised over an edit of yours

I have raised questions about your recent edit to "History of the metric system" in the talkpage section "Talk:History of the metric system#Recent edit by Martinvl". Please, as I have asked you many times before, consider discussing your views there first, and attempting to reach a consensual agreement, before making further similar changes. Discussion is certainly more likely to be productive than is constant warring. Thanks. MeasureIT (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metrication in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chapel Hill (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) 11:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Kilometres per hour‎

If it is of sufficient importance to have a section, then the contents of that section should be summarised in the lead per WP:Lead. It is also of benefit to those readers who understand usage such as kph to see it in the lead. Removing it from the lead might be seen as a POV action, as though there was an attempt to suppress such usage. We need to ensure that our articles give a robust appearance that we are not being selective about which common expressions we approve of! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Credit card! (sorry)

Hi, sorry - sarcasm doesn't travel well and I should have been clearer! Apologies. All I'm saying is that we probably shouldn't say it's a credit card when it isn't, if only because it will upset sad people with OCD, i.e. me! I agree that a fifteen-paragraph explanation might be a bit excessive, on the other hand ... oh, I really don't know. Do you think there is some concise form of words that makes it clear somehow but doesn't actually say it's a card. Does "plastic card" work?? Sorry - not good editing from me. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection I think that your second version with quotes around it pretty much does that. I might just shut up now! :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. When I photgraphed it, I deliberately avoided having credit card (privacy and all that). It was only when I blew the picture up (and it was too late to retake it), than I realised that the text could be read. I didn't know that my camera was that good! Martinvl (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, it's a good sharp image. :) Nice one. Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Mandatory Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

• Hi Martin. Well, we've been through this drill before.... GaramondLethe 20:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Arctic Kangaroo 07:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Martinvl. You have new messages at Arctic Kangaroo's talk page.
Message added 08:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arctic Kangaroo 08:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

On the same subject, ... see M25 Talk page! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 09:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in discussions

Rather than reverting, whinging and throwing about bad faith accusations please come to these talkpages and discuss your continual insistence of adding unencyclopaedic content to these metric system related articles:

• Talk:Metric system
• Talk:International System of Units

212.183.128.236 (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've requested page protection at SPI. Garamond Lethet
c 22:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Garamond Martinvl (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Page protection? To protect the page from what? What are you afraid of? 212.183.128.211 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid of wasting more time than absolutely necessary dealing with a banned user. Garamond Lethet
c 23:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

By all means argue your opinion on the content, but please don't persist with these ad hominem personal attacks. You may get yourself into trouble with the administrators behaving like that. 212.183.128.202 (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

3RR warning

Beware of the 3RR rule at International System of Units. There are discussions on the talkpage about that section, take the time to read, and digest, the opinions of others, and add ideas of your own. We should try to talk this one through, rather than attempt to impose our will. 212.183.140.4 (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Important notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 212.183.140.48 (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 212.183.140.33 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblocks

FYI I've issued a couple of rangeblocks for DeFacto and his obvious socks:

• 23:00, 19 February 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 212.183.140.0/26 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months (Block evasion: obvious socks of user:DeFacto) (unblock | change block)
• 22:54, 19 February 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 212.183.128.128/25 (talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion: obvious socks of user:DeFacto) (unblock | change block)

It's under 200 IP addresses. I'm tired of dicking around with those. I'm sure he'll pop up again somewhere else since he doesn't seem to have anything better to do. Sad. Toddst1 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Metrication deniers

Martin, I am sorry if I inadvertently lent any credence to the silly copyvio claims at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Document transcriptions on lobby group_websites and elsewhere. And if you feel the UKMA links to these documents are a more reliable or permanent source, please revert my changes to Metrication of British transport. Kind Regards Mcewan (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mcewan, No problems at all - in fact I am glad that you found the citations - wheh I looked for them on the .gov.uk a year or two ago, I coulkd not find them, so I used the UKMA site. User:DeFacto has been hassling me for two years now so now this is one less thing that he has with which to hassle me. Martinvl (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure

I took the liberty of refactoring your comments on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto to make it easier to navigate to the appropriate pages. I hope you don't mind. Toddst1 (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No problems - anything to keep him out of our hair. Martinvl (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I just pinged Toddst1 re Bill lC. Garamond Lethet
c 21:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. He doesn't really have a clue about the article he is trying to write. Martinvl (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Whacked. Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited M606 motorway, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hull and Halifax (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) 18:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

RJL templates

Hello Martin, nice job on the road junction list templates! This is just a courtesy note to keep you informed that I fixed a couple of minor technicalities which I spotted with them and their docs. Best, 178.109.28.112 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Martin. In the spirit of WP:BRD, with your Bold edit to introduce italics into the mile column of UK road junction lists having been Reverted, you should not change it back again whilst there is an ongoing Discussion. Wait now to see if there is a consensus amongst editors for such a change to be introduced. 178.105.26.216 (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

M3 edit

This edit was made on an old version of the page and reintroduced errors and bad use of bold/capitals, ref placements etc. Please be careful to work on the most recent version of a page, or place an appropriate template telling other users that you're making large changes. Also, if you now believe a consensus exists to do this, are you going to remove the colour code key from the footer of every UK roads list? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will be - I have already started. I am also making corrections to J2 as per Google maps. Martinvl (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Just out of interest, could you show me where the consensus exists to do what you're doing? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:RJL Talk page (today's discussiopns) Martinvl (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the bit where you waited just five hours before starting your mission? Typically we allow discussions to go on a little longer than five hours before rolling out mass edits and modifications to the manual of style etc. What's the rush? Remember, there is no deadline here. Besides, the discussion continued after your declaration onto the possibility of using a template instead, which would have no ACCESS issues. Have you considered that? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this edit demonstrates that you are becoming disruptive. I notified you above that you had used an old version of a page to roll out your changes, and asked you nicely to be more careful. You weren't. If you continue to edit in this fashion, we'll need to discuss this disruption in more detail. And to think I defended you when Rschen7754 had mentioned Arbcom. Silly me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are the one who was being disruptive by removing a perfectly clear citation and then stating that a citation was needed. I use the word "clear" rather than "reliable" because the citation stated exactly how I came by that information, no more and no less. You have every right to question the reliability of the citation, but not its existance, especially when you deleted it. Martinvl (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point. Your edit removed a series of other edits by other editors. You need to be careful when you edit pages. Make sure you use the most recent edit. And I have no idea what you're talking about here by the way. What is this "clear" and "reliable" issue you have? You have made a number of disruptive edits, please stop doing it. By the way, if it helps, citations should be from reliable sources. Make sure you use reliable sources when you "reference" things. Although an editor of your experience surely must already know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me exactly which edits you are objecting to, and while you are about it, would you please also tell me why you reverted Gareth Griffith-Jones' work of 09:22?

• I know that I removed the coloured blocks - the general consensus of WP:RJL was that they should go (you might not be privy to this posting that I made in connection with the coloured blocks).
• I know that I corrected the destinations for the M3/M25 junction to reflect those currently displayed on Google Maps. Reverting this change is totally unjustified.
• I know that I reinstated my citation of 2009 and removed your "citastion needed" flag - I believe that your action here was unjustfied and I am willing to submit this action to arbitration.

In short, I think that you are the one who is being disruptive. Martinvl (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Do you actually read the posts you get? I showed you two edits you made which over-rode edits by others. The second was after a warning which you clearly disregarded. Stop doing it. Cheers. (FYI, I've reinstated the work that Gareth did (which you'd blown away in your first edit, as it happens), so bonus there, eh?!) Incidentally, with regard to your anecdotal "source", please do "submit this action to arbitration", it's nonsense, and I look forward to seeing how you could possibly defend it against our policies and guidelines. Obviously, it would be courteous of you to let me know when you instigate such arbitration. In the mean time, I'll start referencing everything I do with something like "sourced in situ" or whatever nonsense..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not blow away any of Gareth's changes. If you check the history of today's changes, you will notice that all of my changes were in the subsection "Junctions" while none of Gareth's were in that subsection. Martinvl (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah, you just over-rode all the other edits, most of them mine, as I demonstrated to you twice in diffs in this very section of your talk page. Stop disrupting Wikipedia. Let me know when you start arbitration. In the mean time, stop disrupting Wikipedia with your incorrect self-belief, your rolling out of a "consensus" after five hours of discussion, your inability to understand we have no deadline. Calm down. Slow down. Relax. We'll get it sorted, but it doesn't have to happen in 20 seconds. 20 days, or so is fine. Get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hidden notes in templates

If you're going to use hidden notes in templates, at least ensure they show up on the pages you're using them on please. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please be specific. Martinvl (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You're rolling out templates (without consensus I might add) with hidden notes. You are then not bothering to expose those notes on the pages in which you're rolling out the templates (for which you don't have any consensus). That means you have N1 etc, but no corresponding notes. This is very bad. Please fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please revisit template:RJLUKhdr and tell me if the documentation is sufficient, or would you prefer a full example somewhere template:RJLUK for example? Martinvl (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please revisit every place you're implementing your non-consensual templates and ensure you expose the notes to the reader. If you don't understand how to do this, perhaps you shouldn't be meddling with templates and rolling them out when you have no consensus to do so. And actually, hiding these notes away in templates when editors then need to add a bunch of other wikicode at the end of the page is really a bad idea. Consider what would happen if they already have their own notes which aren't using the same notation.... terrible idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The templates are designed to automatically display notes that are relevant to distances only if the RJL has distance columns. Likewise, they are designed to automatically display notes if the carriageway letters are displayed. In this way, the reader is not exposed to notes that have no relevance to the RJL concerend. In addition, the editor concerned can add his own notes to the list of notes in the footer box if he so wishes. While applying the templates, I am checking for things such as other editor's notes - I have not come across any yet. I will cross that bridge when I see notes by another editor - whatever I do, rest assured, I will not destroy them.Martinvl

BTW, if editors wish to add their own notes to the structure, all that they need to do is to add the parameter notes = Y to the template RJLUKfooter, and if the RJL has incorporated distances, even that will not be neccessary.(talk) 18:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well the least you can do as you roll out these templates which have no consensus whatsoever is to implement the notes yourself. It would be unfortunate if, in the rolling out of these templates without any consensus, you fall foul of your own advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I have been doing. While rolling them out (and deliberately choosing minor motorways such as the A308(M) which get 12 hits a day as opposed to the M25 which get 700 hits a day), I have been tuning the templates quite a bit. I have also been very careful to ensure that at all times, articles will read sensibly. Martinvl (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean like this edit which was finally corrected by this kind edit? Hiding notes in templates is a very bad idea. And rolling them out without any consensus is worse. Please stop, find a consensus for your version of these templates before continuing on your one-man crusade. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This was an error in RJLUKfooter template which I will correct this evening. Martinvl (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Any chance you can show anyone the consensus you think you have to roll out these new templates? Note, if you can't, then I guess you won't mind me reverting all these edits back to the previous status quo? Also, you have a number of answers to comments of yours at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists. It would be useful to see you replying there. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I am currently preparing a document to get some proper feedback based on the experience I have gained on rolling out over the smaller motorways. BTW, I have fixed the M67 problem. Martinvl (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Marvellous. Looking forward to your responses at the MOS. By the way, you might like to fix your errors at A308(M) motorway as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah, notes still not showing. Hence why you should not have hidden notes in templates. You've proved it perfectly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

On my terminal everything seem fine. BTW, are you looking at the RJL footer? Martinvl (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

On your "terminal"? How retro. No, there are no notes showing on that page. Once again, another example as to why you shouldn't be using hidden notes. Please reconsider. Alternatively, I'll undo all the RJL templates you've been implementing without any consensus. How about that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hang on, I can see them. Obviously nowhere near where normal footnotes go! Brilliant idea. Not. I suggest you remove this half-baked idea entirely. Footnotes belong in a footnotes section, not special hidden notes from templates being displayed in a hidden style in another template. Overly complicated and in no way beneficial to our readers. By the way, plenty of comments waiting for you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Château de Beaumesnil, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Henry V and Beaumesnil (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) 12:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on M4 motorway. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Our other kid (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)