In fact, I know one way to get someone's ip. Cu editors can see it. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.164.143.178|89.164.143.178]] ([[User talk:89.164.143.178|talk]]) 15:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
In fact, I know one way to get someone's ip. Cu editors can see it. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.164.143.178|89.164.143.178]] ([[User talk:89.164.143.178|talk]]) 15:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Look dude, you were suspected of being a sock of Asdisis, and CU confirmed that; no SPI report is necessary for a well-evidenced suspicion of sockpuppetry. Editing logged out is block evasion, and you will not be allowed to do that. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 15:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
:Look dude, you were suspected of being a sock of Asdisis, and CU confirmed that; no SPI report is necessary for a well-evidenced suspicion of sockpuppetry. Editing logged out is block evasion, and you will not be allowed to do that. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 15:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
::Cu can't confirm anything, except if 2 users had used the same ip in relatively short time. I have no idea who this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%C4%8Cokoholi%C4%8Dar] is, and cu had apparently confirm that I'mhim. Cu are being abused and that's a fact. I didn't contact you but this this user who may understand, since he has the same case where "cu had confirmed" something he knows it's false. If not abused, then that cu has a heck lot of false positives. [[Special:Contributions/89.164.143.178|89.164.143.178]] ([[User talk:89.164.143.178|talk]]) 16:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
::Cu can't confirm anything, except if 2 users had used the same ip in relatively short time. I have no idea who this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%C4%8Cokoholi%C4%8Dar] is, and cu had apparently confirm that we are both Asdisis. Cu are being abused and that's a fact. I didn't contact you but this this user who may understand, since he has the same case where "cu had confirmed" something he knows it's false. If not abused, then that cu has a heck lot of false positives. [[Special:Contributions/89.164.143.178|89.164.143.178]] ([[User talk:89.164.143.178|talk]]) 16:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Revision as of 16:16, 31 July 2016
Martinevans123 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia next month, possibly
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialogue, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
... my own personal permanent fixture tribute... You turn your back for a just a second and some strange Swedish person sneaks in and steals your records!!
... [8] ... then peace will guide the planets and love will steer the stars
... jus' coz... (most favouritist Jankel guitar solo(s) evva evva) (and even more brillianter live)!!
... an incessant driving backbeat, jazz syncopated piano (mmmm, those trills), sly vocal, soaring blues harp... just funk bliss ... and news just in: [9]
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your determination and dedication to help the encyclopedia grow. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
Coming up to 9 years of service and 77,000 edits, Martinevans123 is truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia. On the surface, you may know him for his witty banter and Private Eye-esque visual humour, which I always enjoy, but beneath the surface lies someone who toils away day in, day out, on keeping articles in better shape. He doesn't go for the big awards like GAs and FAs, but he really does make the encyclopedia better without much reward. This nomination was seconded by User:Yash! and User:MelanieN.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Right, that's it! Please accept my resignation! 19:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC) p.s. but many thanks, anyway. That was really unexpected. I am deeply touched. (allegedly)
The award is usually distributed on Sunday. Due to the unexpected amount of touching displayed on this page you have been penalized with an additional day as Editor of the Week. This matter has not been discussed with the other WER clerks (Are there any other WER clerks?) and cannot be rescinded or changed in any way. Buster Seven Talk20:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has come to the attention of the Editor Retentions' Board of Clerks that you may, perhaps, could be, in possession of a much desired and rarely displayed Official Wikipedia T-shirt. The report states that it is black with the The Wikipedia Globe prominently displayed. The report further states that you may have had your name imprinted on the front (potentially an act of vandalism). This would imply that you have already received accolades and "pats on the back" for your efforts. If that is, in fact, the case you may suffer the misfortune of having an additional day added to your week. The issue is under review. You will be advised ASAP. Buster Seven Talk22:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um....the baseball bat is more of a fungo bat, actually. It's used to hit fly balls to the outfielders during batting practice. And the Bavarian jockstrap is, um, obviously for someone that is well-endowed. Plus, its a Fool card. Not a Complete Fool card. I thought you would like it. The tights have a "slimming" quality, don't ya think? Buster Seven Talk07:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, thanks for the thanks at Reynolds Stone - I really hope his alleged 'Englishness' isn't going to be controversial... Sorry to not send you a greeting for St David's Day – I was worried that it might come out wrong. Oh, and congratulations on your latest WP gong! JezGrove (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry there's no "omfg brilliant button" yet... )
That's only the start! I’ve just realised we could actually out-source Trident! So... now all we have to do is find some mugs to pay the bills and face the fatal consequences if it ever gets used, and the problem's sorted! JezGrove (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we are any good, we make waves. But your presence and the way and weight of your contributions is itself worthwhile. Little piffles don't change that. 7&6=thirteen (☎)17:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not multiply, Stan! I said "sum of" i. e. add. Before we changed to decimal currency in 1972, we had pounds, shillings and pence. See [21]. "Seven shillings and sixpence" or, as we used to say, "Seven & six" Cheers! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard | 08:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the contribution towards clearing up the Alley Oop issue in the Herb Alpert article. I appreciate your effort!THX1136 (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, your source at Dylan Thomas#Early life looks more specific/detailed than the one I used - I guess his age at the time of his victory should be changed in the article to 14? (I'm in no position to make judgments about the reliability of the City and County of Swansea, of course!) JezGrove (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess so. Although in the photo he looks about 10 years old! (and not totally unlike someone else just born). I was surprised to find such a good source, especially with that image of the Sports Day programme. Except that, on 19 June 1928, he was still 13, of course...!?Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-oh - so either way we go with a 'reliable source' and get it wrong, or get shot down in flames for indulging in a bit of commonsense 'original research', then...! JezGrove (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you’ve sorted it already – that’ll teach me to take a 10-minute Wikibreak! I liked your comment on the Talk Page, btw: "Maybe we need a reader tick box at the bottom of the article for ‘Drinker / Poet / It is hard to split the two’?" Dorothy Parker put it very aptly (as usual): "I'm not a writer with a drinking problem, I'm a drinker with a writing problem". And it seems you have to be especially careful with your writing in Wales! (Though no drink was involved with that case, obvs… - thanks to my legal team for that qualifying remark.) JezGrove (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t underestimate the value of the blank slate, and all that philosophical poo! (On the other hand, a friend recently reminded me that: PHILOSOPHY is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat; METAPHYSICS is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that is not there; THEOLOGY is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat, that is not there, and shouting "I found it!"; but SCIENCE is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat using a f----- torch".) JezGrove (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Martin I didn't see your reply until just now. (Though I don't think I've missed out on not having the Duff debt management advice!) I just popped over here to say 'Thanks' for the thanks over at Dylan Thomas. The Poetry Foundation source extract that I used started: "Like James Joyce before him, Dylan Thomas was obsessed with words—with their sound and rhythm and especially with their possibilities for multiple meanings. This richness of meaning, an often illogical and revolutionary syntax, and catalogues of cosmic and sexual imagery render Thomas's early poetry original and difficult. In a letter to Richard Church, included by FitzGibbon in Selected Letters, Thomas commented on what he considered some of his own excesses: "Immature violence, rhythmic monotony, frequent muddle-headedness, and a very much overweighted imagery that leads often to incoherence."" It seemed potentially useful, but I couldn’t quite see where it might fit… It has to be said, Thomas is THE best poet to read out aloud (his Elegy is probably my personal favourite in that respect, for what it's worth...) JezGrove (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've added some good stuff over there. Yes, it does sound good. And he could read it pretty well himself, of course, which is why the US lecture tours looked so attractive to that leech Brinnin and his cronies. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC
(Suggested substitute image): showing the dazzlingly popular "Trump comb over" effect
I can't comment at the article talk page since the image I have found will mislead and confuse since it is about someone else and the "joke" gets lost but the file name fits exactly (and is not a joke). Buster Seven Talk12:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, as long as I'm here, I want to say what a fun time I had during your tenure as Editor of the Week. The box of chocolates and the daily flowers were special and really un-necessary. I'm just doing my job. A new awardee will be notified tomorrow and your reign will be over but your term in office will be a memorable one for me. Thanks for being unique and creating that opening. Buster Seven Talk12:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing the hidden "Why, if he was Jewish?" buried away in a comment when it is explained that Emeric's grave bears the only Star of David in that Church of England churchyard -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's wurst than that, the Mary Rose was a certain couples' post war love - nest cleverly converted by the bloke who would later found Ikea. He/she/it wishes to bury that fact. Hence the attempt to cover up the truth by the rediscovery edit. (Twitch). Is it not clear? (twitch). Irondome (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of moving the article on Keith Emerson's old band The V.I.P.'s in order to lose that horrible apostrophe - it doesn't appear in the band's name in the lead paragraph? JezGrove (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC) JezGrove (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks dreadful, doesn't it. The Grocer himself would be proud, I'm sure. Although some people do advocate apostrophes for plurals of abbreviations and acronyms. There are probably huge discussions archived over at MoS punc. But one issue I've just spotted is that it's currently disambiguating with the film The V.I.P.s. So maybe we'd have to move to The V.I.P.s (film) and/or The V.I.P.s (band)? So I'm guessing the admin over at Wikipedia:Requested_moves might well post it out for discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
March 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Keith Emerson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
153711 |title=Online Community for Keys, Boards, Gear, Lessons, News, Video, Tabs & Chords > Home |publisher=Keyboardmag.com |date= |accessdate=11 March 2016}}</ref>
[[Billy Sherwood]], [[Steve Porcaro]] and [[Vinnie Colaiuta]], on ''[[Back Against the Wall]]'') (2005)
Hi, thanks to you too for helping to fix up Keith's article. I wasn't a huge prog fan backintheday but I happened to see ELP at HV in 2010 and was impressed despite myself (and despite some of their olden fans saying it wasn't a very good show). Just letting you know I found a few more cites for the Instrumentation section and am trying to fix that up with some better refs and general tighten up this morning. Cheers, TheBlinkster (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my pleasure. Myself always a bigger fan of the Nice, which seemed to me to be much more exciting. Emerson Lake and Parker often a bit too sterile for me, although Tarkus and Brain Salad Surgery still personal favourites. Keith was kind enough to reply to me in 2014, through social media, about St Mark's Church - see Talk:Tarkus#St. Marks? I guess that, with the very many improvements made, the article may get to the front page. It's only two days since we learned of Keith's death. Unless of course someone who has "no interest at all in this individual" and who "won't be working on it" simply decides the article is "tremendously far from ready". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating discussion on St. Mark's Church. I too was trying to figure out which St. Mark's it was, especially since there was a post somewhere that said Rick Wakeman almost used the same organ for something else but didn't like the sound. Found plenty of sources saying "St. Mark's Church" (I believe it's also on the record jacket credits) and one saying Flentrop organ but as you discovered the Flentrop St. Mark's seems to be in Seattle - bit far from London recording studios - and no clue on which St. Mark's or whether the place still existed. Very cool that Keith answered back on the query. Thanks again. TheBlinkster (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. You also a fan? I see that the good old Daily Mail has gone all out for a suitably trite and lurid headline for this morning's coverage (but still good pictures). He seemed like a genuinely nice guy who still connected in a meaningful way with his fans - perhaps too meaningful. It's very sad that his life ended like that. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was too young to see their show back in the 70s and I had a bias against prog for a long time, partly because I was a punk when I came "of age" and partly because the musical establishment back then, such as radio, did not make it easy to hear the best moments of the British 70s bands (or in many cases, any moments at all). In my middle age my musical taste got way more eclectic, plus I played classical piano for many years as a kid, so I got a little bit into Emerson. After spending 2 days in his virtual presence now I'm really interested in him. Wiki is good for creating little obsessions like that (last week it was Martin W. Littleton - super famous in his time and so forgotten today all he had was a stub with a picture). TheBlinkster (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A kitten for you!
Many thanks for your help and moral support on getting the Keith Emerson article into shape for its RD posting. Kind regards,
Hi Martin, Thanks for chipping in on the Senghenydd article. It passed today as a GA, and I've put it up for PR. Should you have any thoughts that would help it get to FA, I'd be delighted to hear them. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, it seems the tattooists and piercers of Wales have had a reprieve now - though I hope Dor isn't caught short now that there'll be no compulsory local toilets strategy after all. (The heady power of devolution....) Still, no one can say Leanne and her party monsters are a cheap date now! (I didn't get the email wit the dodgy link, btw.) JezGrove (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. Am surprised he didn't include the dreadful colour of his cell blinds as contributing to his breach of human rights. I didn't know it was only in 1979 that Capital punishment in Norway was abolished. Even after the 2011 Norway attacks, it seems, "opposition to the death penalty remained firmly entrenched, with 16 percent supporting and 68 percent opposed." Those PA announcements saying "Now it's time for outdoors recreation" must have been terribly annoying for him. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's just been pointed out to me that the plot of The Simpsons episode "Bart to the Future", set 30 years in the future, included Lisa becoming President of the United States of America and trying to sort out the economic mess left by her predecessor in the Oval Office, Donald Trump! JezGrove (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If only he'd stuck to sax practice sessions in the White House. "I did not have saxual relations with that woman" would never have got him into trouble - except with vocabulary pedants, and he managed that anyway with his "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". BTW, do you think my source stood up the since-deleted "economic mess" claim over at Trump?JezGrove (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, Joe B is a fantastic guitarist - although whenever I hear "Sloe Gin" it always strikes me as an odd choice of drink in the title as I think of it as an old lady's drink and not too rock'n'roll (but maybe that's just me). JezGrove (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, since you apparently have Colin Welland on your watch list, could you please keep your eyes out for drive-by editors that change the birthplace from Liverpool (correct) to Leigh (incorrect)? I'm not always on-wiki to catch that (was off for four or five days recently), so the article needs more eyes. Thanks, and anyone reading this, could you please also assist by watching the article? (The main reason the drive-bys try to change it is that all of Welland's obits got the birthplace wrong (see article talk page and the footnote in the article itself.) Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we had quite a discussion about this on the article Talk Page last November, didn't we? After I answered the question you had posted there in 2009! It's the sort of "correction" that many editors will make - especially when in it's in the The New York Times obit which is used as the article's first source! I think maybe a hidden note could be added after the text to explain? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) OK, I've done that, thanks for the suggestion. Nonetheless, I would appreciate it if you and others could specifically keep an eye out for drivebys who change it -- this is twice in one week it's happened (perhaps even the same person) and I'm not on Wikipedia every day; sometimes I take long breaks, and this sort of information shouldn't be left incorrect like that. Thanks anyone who can help! -- Softlavender (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I used to drink with Larkin on jazz night (Tuesdays?) in the Haworth. He wasn't a big drinker - I guess unaccepted oesophageal cancer will do that - but I always made a point of buying him a pint. "Very kind of you", he'd say. "Think nothing of it", I replied, "I'm going to dine out with impressionable young English students for years on this story". The old lecher smiled. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least in later years, he had relatively little interest in his own poetry and his two great loves were jazz and his library (maybe other things beyond my knowledge). I went to Hull, in large part, because of the quality of that library - although there weren't many other places to do laser physics. He certainly detested the Oxbridge sherry circuit and its affectations. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin. In the section "Song versions" seen here [27], would you be interested in sharing your thoughts? I'm personally done with talking to that editor who opened the thread. Maybe you could help by sharing your input? Cadencool23:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks Martin. And I agree with you the wall of text is overkill. Any input from you would be appreciated so thank you :) Cadencool00:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin if you have the time could you please go to this [29] RFC and share your opinion? I know you are a long time music editor so I thought you could add to the discussion. Thanks. Cadencool19:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was recently experimenting with the clever gadgets on my user page, when I stumbled upon the view history tab. Inflamed with curiosity, I pressed it and was intrigued by a number of watchers tab. In my folly I pressed it. Imagine my horror as I discovered I only had sixty one! In my grief and shame I rushed to my bedchamber, where I suffered a complete Mental breakdown. It may have been days or weeks, but I awoke clutching my poster of arguably the greatest Briton who ever lived. The days have become an unending nightmare. How can I increase this miserable total? Should I start an RfA? Should I start an Infobox war? Is the answer to include the word fuck in all postings? Only you can help. Irondome (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder were you intending to add the "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning"? And have you made any attempt "resolve dispute on article talk page? But are you sure you have the right venue, as "Pov Pushing" doesn't necessarily mean "edit warring". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I don't see there is anything I can do to help the situation. I have no personal interest in this topic. I trust it will be resolved one way or another. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my comment at inappropriate place, but i write only because of tagging my name at here. this clumsily behaviors such as send notifications to all of admins [31],[32],[33],[34] or launching mayhem and controversy not only isn't effective but also similar to an example of a criminal act! Wikepedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and Dishonest and gaming behaviors oughtn't be place in that. when seen to the his contributions log we faced with massive amounts of these behaviors after approval restrictions! i hope admins including EdJohnston be following up these issues.
Since it is Killuminati allows to track messages, so this is a WP: Harassment. For the rest given the magnitude of the POV pushing, it was legitimate to notify administrators. Could you warn him ? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Martinevans. I was unable to see more than one page of the book you linked to (the page mentioning Dupree's song). Feel free to revert my edit, but I think it would be appropriate to link to your source for substantiation. I am pretty new to editing Wikipedia articles, but I was a book editor for 30-some years. I may have been overly bold with this particular edit. I appreciate hearing from you. Best wishes from Jim Wicklatz Jwicklatz (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. You did a good job at tidying up what was there. I'm thinking that although the book suggests a link between that song and the development of rap, but it doesn't explain why very well. So it is a bit tenuous. I may open a thread at the CJD Talk Page. While we consider, we might want to listen, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to Liverpool, but I came in from Dublin at midnight and caught a train at 5:45, so I saw and spoke to exactly two people only: the taxi driver and the hotel clerk. EEng14:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And editor except the article creator (i.e. I) can end the speedy-deletion nonsense by simply removing the template. Might I suggest you do that? It's amazing that someone can be active on WP for that many years and still be that confused about the meaning of notability or even, for that matter, the meaning of the various speedy deletion modes. EEng20:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have a better idea, which is that you might perhaps refresh your memory of WP:A7, which requires not a claim of notability but rather a claim of "significance", which is explicitly defined as a far, far lower standard than notability. Clearly "cousin of the Japanese emperor" qualifies. Martin, can you put an end to this by just doing the honors? In removing the CSD template, you need not even state a reason -- it's meant to be as easy to remove as to add. EEng21:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll give you that one. Does "second cousin by marriage" give "significance"? Really?? Would he still have been "significant" if he hadn't been called by a nickname? Perhaps I used the wrong template - but you still have not indicated why he's sufficiently notable for an article. The reasons for the article's existence here look extremely dubious to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I almost never nominate articles for deletion - I've probably nominated fewer than 10 in almost 10 years, hence using the wrong template. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that may explain why you're so unclear on the criteria. For crying out loud, notability (which is discussed at AfD) is a function of coverage, not any asserted fact (which is what A7 is about). For the nth time, you need to review CSD, prod, and AfD criteria and procedures. They're fairly complex, but the solution to that is that if you can't keep them straight you shouldn't be dabbling in them. You're wasting a lot of people's time here. EEng21:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Margareta Hallin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that soprano Margareta Hallin could have performed internationally, but decided to stay in her homeland instead? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Margareta Hallin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
My compromise was as follows: take DYK credit, because I put more time in sourcing "her" than in most of my stub+ DYKs. But I removed her from the official opera DYK (where I add when they appear). What do you think of the witch of Pungo? Removed from the Main page, TFA on Halloween of 2010, because of close paraphrasing, then improved, nominated for a second chance, but rejected. Teh witch was pardoned, and a day made in her name 10 July. A gouvernor restored her good name in 2006, 300 years after she was "ducked". I don't think I want to stress the TFA process with another request. What else could we do to keep her memory alive? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A great palindrome but also a tax-efficient scheme, apparently… I just love the way that the BBC reports "Mossack Fonseca says it has operated beyond reproach for 40 years and never been accused or charged with criminal wrong-doing". Err, yes, well that'll be because for 40 years no one had proof of what they were up to, and now they do, they've been reproached! JezGrove (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the pundits, the days of the super-rich hiding their ill-gotten gains offshore are over, but personally I think they're more likely to be just, errr, numbered, and that as usual they'll be havin' a laugh at our expense. JezGrove (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope Corbyn asks him to check his long johns for silver at PMQs tomorrow, then! According to the BBC: "In a cartoon entitled 'Offshore' in the [Telegraph], the artist Adams depicts Mr Cameron stood on a tiny desert island being circled by sharks. A similar cartoon by the Times's Peter Brookes sees Mr Cameron as Long John Silver being told by a parrot Jeremy Corbyn: 'You haven't got a leg to stand on, mate!'" JezGrove (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was proud (but mystified) to find I'd been promoted to extended confirmed user status, as have many other respected editors (including yourself and Gerda). What dizzying heights had I reached? What wondrous vistas of editing awaited me? And what had I done to deserve such riches? - 30 days tenure, 300 edits, and the ability to edit in some contentious areas... I feel like I've just received my cycling badge after driving about 500,000 miles over 40 years, and can now join Guy Martin on his Wall of death - doing something I don't want to do with someone I don't want to meet. Harrumph over. Diolch. Taxi for Rob? Robevans123 (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t tell me this upgrade doesn't entitle me to some ego-inflating medal that I can award myself (preferably with different coloured ribbons) for my efforts in improving human knowledge about everything from Circumzenithal arcs to Inflatable buildings? What about the poor souls creating WP pages for every cut-and-cover tunnel between London Kings Cross and Edinburgh Waverley – are they to get nothing?! (Sob….) JezGrove (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing Dr. Blofeld's post I'm holding out for the full 'wiki Grand Duchyship’' or whatever, at least! I'm sure it will be well-deserved - after all my latest (proper!) WP page creation has had over 8,000 hits and it's only been up since late on Sunday - still, who's counting? (OK, well… some bot apparently - oh, and me, though I'm the first to admit the level of interest was very unexpected and unwarranted.) JezGrove (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you're not getting your 'Blair's mixed up and that really you're after TONY Blair's May 2009 Dan David Prize for "exceptional leadership and steadfast determination in helping to engineer conflict”? (I might have muddled that up myself, I get confused by long award citations.) I'd go for Tony – he won $1m of which he had to give 10% to charity. Lionel would bend over backwards to win a prize like that!JezGrove (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)JezGrove (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to Wikipedia and have difficulty negotiating my way round any type of communications and editing on here. I am concerned that the birthplace of Colin Welland is indicated as Liverpool. He was actually born in Leigh, Lancashire, (Milton Street to be precise), before moving to the Kensington area of Liverpool as a toddler. Colin is one of a few famous people born in Leigh. Along with Georgie Fame, Thomas Burke and James Hilton. If you would kindly rectify this for me, I would be grateful.
[37] MartinEvans? And here I was thinking the name was Martine Vans. But seriously, I get the whole humor thing, but when you have an editor who is clearly taking it the wrong way, please don't escalate the situation. I'm not suggesting a humorless existence, just don't direct it at an individual you know isn't going to take it the right way. NE Ent15:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Seriously, you get the humor thing." Martine Vans is fine by me. I continually seek to find the tiniest chink in the armour of wiki-homourlessness. The arrows often rebound. Anyone who comes to ANI saying "there are too many to blame", and talking of "punishment", needs to beware, I think. I also think there was quite a confusion here between the creation of the article, the appearance of that DYK hook and the process by which it found it's way to the Main Page. These might all be reasonably scrutinised, but at the appropriate fora. I had hoped that my last comment to Catlemur contained, for them, the meaning they requested. Not for you, it seems. But I have always valued your level-headedness and good sense so thanks for your advice. Minaret Vans 123 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC) p.s. at least Catlemur didn't get called "a jerk", eh?[reply]
Oops, sorry about that. You are not a jerk, and I shouldn't have said that, but the directed humor thing is a jerk move. (Not really sure what the relative ranking of "jerk" and "drama queen" are on the pantheon of wiki-insults. Sounds like something we could have an RFC, ANI thread, and arbcom case to determine the answer is No consensus.) NE Ent15:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as this evening's episode of The News Quiz noted: "When your party is embroiled in accusations of anti-Semitism, wading in and repeatedly shouting 'Hitler was a Zionist' doesn't really calm things down..." JezGrove (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So according to Ken's thinking, despite Hitler's (original) solution being the equivalent of saying to the Jews "Why don’t you eff off to where you effing came from?” (to which "What? Leipzig?" apparently wasn't an acceptable answer, even if your family had lived there for generations) this makes him a Zionist. And there I was thinking it was the typical shout of ignorant racist thugs to people from ethnic minorities everywhere… JezGrove (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know i'm a few days late, but all the edits involving the DOD seem like sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. The source for the death currently in place makes me skeptical. I'd like your opinion on this matter since you also reverted some edits of this nature. --Saltedcake (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Saltedcake. I initially reverted the death as I could find no reliable source he had actually died. I've not really considered the date carefully. I'll take another look. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saltedcake, I have now added this "American Darts Organisation" source, as it contains a date. But I'm really not sure how reliable it is. For all we know, it may be just using the Wikipedia page for its information. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your note on Dr. B's talkpage. Thanks for checking the Welsh names and also for a few minor fixes that I see you made to the article's text. Anyway, I've sent it to FAC now with fingers firmly crossed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
Hi Martin I just wanted to let you know that I mentioned you here [39] and wanted you to know this. My stalker will just not quit. Rather creepy if you ask me. Cadencool19:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably one of his many threads devoted to me on multiple talk pages and ANI boards, but I think you first saw him on the Song project page. Cadencool19:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I remember now, about a month ago. That discussion prompted some good ideas but it remains unresolved. The word "version" is a bit ambiguous isn't it. But I see that he says he "looked at a few pages where you made recent changes". Well that sounds like going beyond watchlist overlap (I was recently accused of "following" someone around when I made an edit to a second article they had just edited - simply because it popped up in my Watchlist). How very tiresome. I guess Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs is the still best venue to try and discuss it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that discussion prompted good ideas but nothing has been resolved. I did not participate in that discussion because I am so done dealing with that aggressive stalker who will not stop harassing me. He has me on his watchlist, follows all of my edits, and edits pages that he never worked on before until he realized that they were pages I worked on and then suddenly he shows up undoing my work. That is creepy and unacceptable behavior. It's become very tiresome and old. His recent report on ANI where he was trying to get me blocked went nowhere. I have no doubt he will try again but the community will soon tire of him and his wiki games. Cadencool20:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does he just revert your use of the word "version" or does he revert all sort of changes you make? You say that "he has you on his watchlist", but I guess this only alerts him if you have something appear on your Talk Page. Perhaps it's just that your Watchlists overlap - mostly songs, I'm guessing. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he reverts the word "version" on all my edits and has been doing that for several months now. And yes he does have me on his watchlist since the time of the "You've Lost that loving Feelin" article. He deliberately goes through all of my other edits and often shows up on articles such as "Emotions" where he never edited before but only decided to edit becaause they were pages I edited. I do not believe its a case of overlap and I do not believe his edits are in good faith either. This is a case of being stalked, harassed, and bullied. Cadencool20:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is no way to continue. It's highly unproductive, and demoralising for you. I do hope it can be resolved somewhere. Personally, I can see nothing wrong with using "original version", even in the case of articles like Emotion (Samantha Sang song) where the name of the main artist appears in the title. But I realise that opinions may vary. And of course it's not just an issue with terminology but also, very often, with article structure. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Martin it is no way to continue but he just will not stop. It would be great if he left me and my edits alone, and it would be appreciated if he stopped opening multiple threads on me and filing bogus ANI reports. I believe he is upset because I refuse to speak with him any further so he plays the flaunting of the rules game or he tries playing the WP game in an attempt to try getting me in trouble for things I never did. He accuses me of violating rules and guidelines yet he fails to provide me his evidence. He calls my edits "dubious", well how so exactly? He claimed I asked you to be my voice, yet I never did that. He lied about that and it annoyed me. But his obession with me is highly disruptive and disturbing. It's unacceptable and not good. I get the feeling he's trying to run me off the project. Cadencool21:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying hard Martin to avoid him for several months now and as you see it hasn't worked because he continues to stalk me and tries to force me against my will to communicate with him by opening multiple threads devoted to me on multiple talk pages where he pings me in his attempts to force me to speak with him again. When that failed, he filed a bogus report on me trying to get me blocked which went nowhere, and next thing you know he's over at the "Emotion" page stalking my edits. A page he he never edited before but did so because of my connection. He's done it at "Johnny Angel" and at "Heart of Glass" (articles he never edited before) and many other pages that would be too long to type out here. Mediation would not work. That man wants my attention and I am done giving it to him. Thanks for trying to help Martin. I really appreciate it. I respect you and I respect your opinions. You are one of the few good people on wiki. And one of the funniest too. Love your edit summaries which are often filled with good humor. We need that around here. It lightens up this dark place so thank you. Cadencool21:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting the things people said behind my back. Martinevans123, if you are interested in getting involved, then you should know the background. The articles involved were ones that I looked at at the start of the discussion at WT:SONG, there is no stalking, those were just the articles under discussion. Caden however refused to participate in the discussion, when I had specifically asked him to participate in all the edit summaries as well as repeated direct requests on his talk page. While the discussion was still undergoing, Caden continued to engage in edit warring, not just with me, but with others as well, just some of his edits here - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. If he had continued to edit warring after I had filed the edit warring report on him, he would have received an extended block, given that he already had a block and a topic band for edit warrning - here and here. I'm sure you had not intended it to be so, but your contribution at WT:SONG was used as an excuse for him to continue edit warring while refusing to address the issue. It should be noted that where there is a dispute, per WP:BRD, the ones involved in the dispute should discuss the issues involved rather than delegating it to someone else. I appreciate your contribution, and hope you can continue to engage as a neutral editor, but I hope you can also understand that not participating in discussion while aggressively reverting (and making various odd accusations) as Caden did is not acceptable behaviour, and should not be encouraged. Hzh (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hzh, you're accusing me of saying things "behind your back"? And could you explain what you mean by "delegating it to someone else"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not you, but what Caden said. They were clearly wrong or misleading. Delegating just meant that Caden refused to discuss the issue while getting you involved (although I should say your participation is appreciated by the way). Hzh (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence over Cadens' interpretation and use of the word "version" in song articles. And with the slight restructuring it sometimes involves. Maybe Caden is seeking to reach a level of consistency between song articles that is not really required. I've already said elsewhere that I don't see what he has added as necessarily "wrong". But the place for any discussion is at WT:SONG, not here. Similarly with accusations of edit warring, which belong at WP:EW. I think we can all agree that this is my "private" Talk Page, not a forum for resolving disputes, so there really is no need for you to post 14 examples of what you see as edit warring and the diffs for two previous blocks, OK?? It takes more than one person to "edit war" doesn't it? I appreciate that you want to give "your side of the story" but I'm going to have to politely ask both of you to take your dispute through the appropriate formal channels. I'd still urge both of you, however, to first try and re-engage in that discussion at WT:SONG, where a proper consensus could be reached, not "behind anyone's back." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you appear to agree with his version of events here - "I can see that you are trying to ignore him, as far as possible, but still feel threatened" when he was actually actively engaged in edit warring, I felt it is only right that I should make clear what is actually happening. Perhaps I went overboard, if so apologies. His edit warring was with a number of editors, not just me, some of them issued warning/requests not to edit-warring when I decided to file a edit warring report (I in fact did not engaged in edit-war in the article concerned). Hzh (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point to you isn't about any dispute between me and Caden, but I'll leave it for now even if you missed the point. Hzh (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Martinevans123,
Helikopter Service Flight 451 was a stub that I have added quite a lot of information to. I would appreciate it if you took the time for a peer review since you are also active on 2016 Turøy helicopter crash. Both for proper english since it is not my first language and other things I most likely have done wrong since I am quite new to Wikipedia.
Cheers :-) Treehugger76 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and have a look. Quite frankly, Treehugger76, the news that English is not your first language is quite a surprise. Please be assured that the English I have seen you use is just as good as, if not better than, that of many editors who count it as their first language. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the article and for the nice words :-) I am Norwegian, but have been working in the oil industry reading and writing technical English for 16 years. I know a lot of words and terms, but the last 5% of perfection for a Wikipedia article is probably only achievable for someone with english as their first language.Treehugger76 (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://www.stmaryhighamferrers.org/music, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I may have made a mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Facts, eh. So troublesome sometimes. As if my own words would be any better. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC) p.s. if only there was an easy for me to see where I went wrong. I can't even learn from my mistakes this way. Nor can anyone else, apart from you. I guess I'll just have to guess exactly which were the "55% 121 words".[reply]
I might Diannaa, if I was a user of that application (or if I had even heard of it before now). I wonder could you explain what "55% 121 words" actually means? (preferably in words of one syllable or less) But don't worry, I've already sent my begging letter to Canon Richard Stainer, hoping he will spare me the high court writ. Shucks, the last time I did this I was locked for a month in the crypt. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, once again, to me it just looks like a series of facts. Struggling to find other words for "organ", "choir" and "'end of the nineteenth century" , and for people's names, etc. What does "55% 121 words" actually mean? And how come people with 56% escape? Is this the tool they use in the High Court, or is it all down to the judge? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some judges are very nice, Martin - according to someone I can’t mention who was very appreciative about a ruling to do with a paddling pool and a lot of olive oil. But of course, some are worse than others. JezGrove (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weirdly, he came from Snodland, which is just a mile or two from Higham, Kent - I have fond(!) memories of summer holidays spent working as a labourer at Snodland's old Holborough Blue Circle cement factory. (Gap year? What's one of those?! But then again, 'Factory?...') JezGrove (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that track, but a Kent connection seems likely - though maybe just a strange place name that appealed to the band? (We used to joke about 'the land of the Snods' when we were kids.) I remember that when I was a teenager Dread / Hughes replaced loads of public signs in Snodland with 'Dreadland' one April Fools' Day (e.g. the railway station and post office), but sadly I've not found a RS for it, so it will have to be lost to posterity. JezGrove (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, you've presented exactly the same material in exactly the same order using exactly the same words. It's a copyright violation. Please don't do it any more, or you will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well Diannaa, that wasn't my recollection and it certainly wasn't my intention. I had thought I had condensed, and made selective use of only parts of that source - those paragraphs contain 538 words and I used only 233 of them. It looks like my second edit, 1 minute later, described as "trim" in my edit summary, was not the trim I had intended it to be. I also now see that I was distracted by a vandal who popped-up at Anthony Hopkins claiming that he was dead (... and, as if by magic, they have now just returned. How coincidental.) I found this more that a little disturbing and spent a good 20 minutes searching the internet for clues. And I never returned to format the church reference with reflinks and make any further copyedits. Your phrase "don't do it any more" suggests I do this on a regular basis, which I think is incorrect. I'm also surprised that the threat of blocking me from editing is the best way to go here. I'm well aware that every page at that website is copyrighted by the "Church of England within the Diocese of Peterborough", but I'm really not sure that the church would see use of that material, with the correct attribution, as a huge problem. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)
Under the terms of the Berne Convention, all literary material is copyright unless specifically released under license or into the public domain. No notice or registration is required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck out appropriately above, to emphasise my ignorance. Sorry I didn't get to the convention. Perhaps you can explain the purpose of the copyright symbol, which sounds a bit redundant? You'll see a table on the web page, detailing the specification of the new organ, which I was considering copying into the church article. How would one paraphrase that exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article copyright symbol, the symbol was made optional in the United States on March 1, 1989. Here is an information page from the gov.uk website which states the copyright symbol is optional in that country as well. Other countries will have their own legislation in place. Regarding the table, lists of facts, such as the names of members of a sports team or the list of songs on a record album are not copyrightable, so my opinion is that you could include this material; from a copyright point of view it would be okay. — Diannaa (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that country. Thank you for the useful information. Not sure I want to risk it, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC) p.s. why not make the copy-vio check tool more available to editors, so they can check their own work?[reply]
Hi Martin, no need to send thanks for our generosity with our washed-up politicos - you're very welcome! (But some cash in a brown envelope would be appreciated...) Or you could just blame your compatriots and their reckless voting behaviour. JezGrove (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article - but profoundly disturbing when something from the time of your youth is now the subject of a museum exhibition and is being proposed as a heritage site... Robevans123 (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I din't know you had snubbed anyone re the Dragon Project. The idea of this one is to have similar rules (as that worked well) but obviously for a different geography.— Rodtalk21:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm running the West Country one too, so not sure why it would be an insult to me haha! I do wish you'd been a bit more supportative of the Dragon one though.♦ Dr. Blofeld06:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like cider on a hot day, I find your constant links to subjects from discussions most refreshing. You're either very well travelled, or you sit on Google, constantly. I really don't know how you do it, but bravo, nonetheless! CassiantoTalk12:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, I know we can't all be as gorgeous as Leanne, but for some reason the WP article Body Gossip has been put forward for deletion. I've expanded the page a little but if you get a chance perhaps you could take a look and see what you think? Personally, unless it's a blatant case of self-promotion I'd rather see a rubbish stub ready to be improved than no article at all, and I've certainly seen articles that I consider to be more worthy candidates for deletion. JezGrove (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick – the article is being kept, and only minutes after I mentioned it here. Your powers are magical, shady deals or not! (Though keeping the rain away during the filming of Y Gwyll must have tested even your powers - I’ve given up expecting actual downpours and am looking for signs of wet tarmac now…) JezGrove (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spoiler alert: nobody drowns - the special effects budget must have been HUGE! (Although looking at the forecast for Aber it will be after the weekend before normality resumes.) And living in a dry county probably isn't so great, anyway JezGrove (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I wonder why Mr Hamilton thinks everyone can be bought? He might have chosen to sell his soul, but I don’t think Leanne 'would' (yikes, that was bad!) But great to see UKIP in Wales getting off to a flying start – now that they've scraped the barrel, perhaps they could have a look behind the fridge! (And of course, the last time the 'cheap date' jibe was deployed in the Senedd it went SO well). JezGrove (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, enjoying a little pruning, are we? It's not garbage. The Daily Mail is not everyone's favourite source, but it has been agreed as being perfectly good for material that is not controversial - that was the consensus from the last discussion at WP:RS. You think a quote from Desert Island Discs and the fact that her father bought her a piano are "controversial"? Words fail me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the lovely "Glitter Snack Kitten". Yes, I saw that video last year when this came up and I'm not sure that anything at YT can be used as an WP:RS. So yes, you're right, but we need a better source. I'll not revert again but I suspect that many others way do. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC) ... and of course "West End" is not wrong, as Leicester Square is indeed in the West End.... and does the exact location or address of the snack bar actually get shown in the video?[reply]
Ah yes, "the plural verb is used because the context for "none" suggests more than one thing or person." That sounds quite reasonable and makes perfectly good sense to me. Thanks for pointing that out, although I don't see it listed amongst the 77 deadly sins! (yet) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you pick either "A" or "D", at "25%", then it's because there's a 1/4 chance that you're correct, and therefore, your answer is correct.
However, if you go with "B" at "50%", then it's because 1/2 of those answers were "25%", which would both be correct, and therefore, your answer is correct.
Finally, if you go with "C" at "100%", then it's because any of those answers were correct, and all of those answers imply the previous answers to be correct, and therefore, your answer is correct.
Martin. Mom lived a long (93 years) adventurous life, I would write and article about her if I could, but I can't. I already did on pseudo article about Dad and that's pushing it. But it was nice to hear from you, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EgyptAir
Hi,
The number of survivors are shown in many (if not all) other accident articles (Eg. Adam Air Flight 574, Metrojet Flight 9268). I understand that readers are not idiots, but since other article follow this convention regardless of whether there are any survivors or not, I don't see a reason not to include it.
Sorry to revert you. Yes, my only reason is that adding redundant information like that treats the reader as an idiot. If this is a firm guideline for Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence, then I will not revert again. If it is defined as a mandatory field, I think we may need a change in the guideline. I'm generally in favour of infoboxes (even for classical musicians), and I like to see consistency, but I think slavishly following all the parameters in the box every time, just for the sake of consistency, is a bit short-sighted. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. In the example given in Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence on Pam Am Flight 103, number of survivor(s) (zero) is/are shown despite the deaths of all people on board the plane. It seems strange that number of people missing (zero) is also shown. As of EgyptAir MS 804, I would keep the survivors field blank, I guess. This aside, I really wish there were survivors...
Another five minutes or so well spent listening to a joyous feast. I was going to joke about tuning into Radiopedia, and found that there is one (but it's not quite what I had in mind). Robevans123 (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Martin, bite, also irony doesn't transfer well on-line unless you know the person. Hence our early protracted wars. Ceoil (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I'm always biting off a lot more newbie that I can chew, aren't I. My editing skills transfer even less well most of the time. I have assumed totally good faith with John our family tree man. But thanks for the kind reminder. Would you like me to go and retract all of my comments there? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I enjoy your comments mostly, but maybe you could engage the man, rather than just simply take the piss. We were all nebs here at one stage, perhaps with not such bold claims, but whatever. I fancy he is an older gentleman, and I always think of my own father and if he was to venture out into the deepest internet's backwater sink holes. Ceoil (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your edit summary here, "Baffling pigs" was a genuine mnemonic in the financial services industry, for the countries using the Euro (Belgium, Austria, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Ireland, Netherlands, Germany, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain). Then those pesky Slovakians and Estonians joined up and spoiled it. ‑ Iridescent16:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, I was going to throw you an Eno tune to throw water under the bridge, but his representatives dont want us listening on you tube, seemingly. I got you this second rate Bauhaus cover instead. Its not exactly a pigs sow, but not the dogs bollix I wanted either. Ceoil (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You obv haven't been following my contribs, block log, or the que between here and my inevitable date with arbcom ;) If I tool up I reckon I have a fight chance. Ceoil (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the detail about the inspection is not important. The inspection would have been performed before the Continental even took off and lost its strip, leaving it essentially worthless in this case. -- 143.85.169.19 (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take to the Talk Page for such a major change. It's been like that for quite a while? Your edit summary was not sufficiently convincing, for me anyway. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On 15 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Nott, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David Nott(pictured) is often styled the "Indiana Jones of surgery"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Nott. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, David Nott), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
What actually happened was that I added you and Charles to the credit list in the DYK nomination when you made several edits to the new article. When Casliber cranked the handle to put the DYK onto the mainpage, a bot processed that list to distribute messages like this. The DYK process is quite complicated and there are many such steps in assembling and posting the batches. Andrew D. (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nice thing about such credit is that it can be multiplied and shared without loss. But if you want more to do, please take a look at this list. You'll be familiar with the issues from our work elsewhere... Andrew D. (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that link. An interesting article which the general reader will probably find fascinating and may well act as a "first step into Wikipedia" for the casual internet browser. I think exactly the same issues apply as at List of unusual deaths, which of course has had some of our "serious editors" veritably foaming at the mouth in the course of its 8+ RfDs. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is that any editor can remove any content they choose from their talk pages, except for declined block appeals while the block is in effect (and a couple of other minor items). They are entitled to remove block notices. WP:BLANKING
The convention is that blocked editors should only use their talk pages for discussing or appealing their block. You are allowed to discourage the IP from developing article content on their talk page while blocked, although it's normally not worth worrying about.
An IP doesn't have a link to Special:MyPage/Sandbox, so although they can create one if they know how, it's probably not productive to suggest that they should use it to practise editing.
Yes, that's very useful, thanks. I had forgotten IPs don't have a sandbox. I must admit I've seen wide variation in how the Talk Pages of blocked editors are treated. I was rather thrown by the comment of User:Ponyo who said "I pulled their talk page access. It's clear they don't intend to request an unblock". I must have assumed this somehow meant the repeated restoration of Talk Page content had been justified. That was the only reason I intervened. And I made a mistake by restoring content in order to complete my posts - I was trying to engage the IP in dialogue, but I should have just started a new thread regardless. Perhaps I was a little naive expecting any reply. Is User:2001:558:6020:161:25DF:CBA7:CD64:6450 a sockpuppet? Looks very much like it. Hard to know who User:2602:306:3357:BA0:3564:6A6E:3B00:BB6D is. Good luck with those two. I guess trying to deal with the constant tidal wave of vandalism is one reason why editors end up leaving the project, as it often seems to be a complete waste of time. Who knows, perhaps we are short of admins. On seconds thoughts - none of it is worth (me) worrying about. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just meant belated since whatever your last one was. But cheers to the inexorable march, anyway! Decent little tune there. Thanks. InedibleHulk(talk) 09:02, June 16, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I usually try to scan everything it does before accepting. I must have missed that. Could you recommend a better/ cleaner tool? It's not good on date formats. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about ending up at the same place, it's about not using a redirect when it's not needed. The problem are users not using scripts they way they are supposed to. Just review your edit before saving, simple. Mlpearc (open channel)15:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was my first use of REFLINKS again there after your polite request of last night. I reviewed my edit. I made a decision that the other changes were not problematic. I judged the second link useful and the replacement of the section link by the redirect as irrelevant. Perhaps we ought to agree exactly which additional actions that REFLINKS performs are a problem. I didn't realise it was such an ENORMOUS PROBLEM. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Civility Barnstar
You deserve it for keeping the sometimes intricate debate on Talk:Death of Jo Cox on a steady course with a cool and clear head. I always enjoy good debates and exchange of ideas, you learn a lot from them if they include civilized people just wanting to do what is best for the article. You are definitely such a person. Cheers! w.carter-Talk20:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind of you, W. Carter. And you have the good sense and humility to admit when you've made a mistake, even a very small one. We just don't see enough of that! Cheers to you also. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. I'm still not sure whether you actually watched the whole game, as I have not seen anyone use the phrase "like three-legged donkeys on ice-skates". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds better if you say "They played with 0.01% of their adult male population behind the ball". (Really. Do the maths yourself if you don't believe it.) ‑ Iridescent22:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, according to New Scientist obesity in Whales is in decline (I blame the EU's fishing quotas - though possibly not for long...)! Those Icelandic commentators are typical tight-lipped northerners – I’m sure they could learn a thing or two from the stoical and entirely unemotional response of the Italians when they win/lose against Spain on Monday! Speaking of defying stereotypes, of course England won’t be crashing out the same day… well, ok we probably will. But it would be no bad thing if underdogs Iceland replicate the feat achieved by Denmark in the ’92 finals - the amazing breaks made by the Laudrup brothers back then were unforgettable. JezGrove (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On current form, England couldn’t light a fire even with matchsticks. Though they could soon be singing "I ain't got no matches but I still got a long way to go" as they head home. BTW, I’d be happy to see Wales go all the way, too - Gareth Bales' goal from that free kick was worth so much more than the two scrappy ones we managed to scramble into the net! JezGrove (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What a performance!! Heavens to Murgatroyd the dream final of Wales v Iceland is still possible!! Likely probably not but possible :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk21:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"This guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, 'Doc, my brother's crazy, he thinks he's a chicken.' And the doctor says, 'Well why don't you turn him in?' and the guy says, 'I would, but I need the eggs.'" - Woody Allen, Annie Hall. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Staying in?
I'll probably regret making this early prediction, but I'm taking off my bra and relaxing (metaphorically, you understand). Forget Brexit, it looks like we'll get Bralaxtit. Of course, we'll soon find out if I lacked support - in which case it will be down to Nige's voters crawling over broken glass (sounds like he must drink in a REALLY classy pub...) JezGrove (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I take it all back - Vote Leave have delivered exactly what they promised, and on Day 1! "We'll take back control of our borders!" Of course, you sometimes have to be careful what you wish for… ps: I (sort of) understand the reasons for the Sunderland referendum result, but what was going on in Wales? (With some magnificent exceptions, of course). JezGrove (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. You're welcome to the lemmings - although I suspect only slightly more than 50% were stupid enough to jump, and the rest were pushed. Was the image you conjured up of Leanne as "First Dai" intentional? JezGrove (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was reminded of a story my grandfather used to tell, recounted to me by my father, of someone he knew who was once driving his old Morris van, at night time, on the A479. Descending the steep hill on that road, between Talgarth and Builth, he found his brakes had failed and he careered through the hedge and turned the van upside down. As he sat there, trapped in his van, he began to hear the sound of petrol dripping into the interior from the upturned petrol tank. Searching frantically in his pockets, he was relieved to find his pen-knife. He reportedly would later say: "I was so lucky because I knew if the van caught fire at least I'd be able to cut my throat!" Lucky indeed, but he survived his ordeal. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
p.s. how much will it cost to change all of these back to that nice blue colour? [reply]
Haha. Yes, I agree, I much prefer the original Swedish version, which just seems more authentic. All that mumbling and hesitation; and the Alzheimer's just makes it worse - he can barely finish a sentence. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Failures in football and politics – but we’ll be resilient, and who wanted to be in the Euros anyway?!
Now there's a surprise – England's lacklustre millionaire footballers beaten by a country that doesn't even have a single professional team, and which has only one resident who plays the game for money... Still, now that Roy Hodgson has resigned perhaps we could have a job share? It looks like Corbyn could be out of work soon and looking to exploit his experience of motivating left wingers, and though Cameron's attempts to play on the outside-right have clearly failed, he will soon be available to offer his skills (?) as a defensive midfielder. BTW, good luck against Belgium! JezGrove (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Oops! I meant to say "and which has only one resident who plays the game for money in the (English – and Welsh, well sort of) Premier League". Still, perhaps my total ignorance of the game will see me leading the English team to oblivion in 2020? Though not before I’ve got my tax affairs in order, obviously … (I’d brand myself as incurably delusional, but Jeremy 'Hunt' is thinking of running for PM – we need that 'Brexit bonus' invested in mental health services, and fast!) JezGrove (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few bottles of Head & Shoulders may be tipped down the drain over this, and the article Joe Hart is now semi-protected. He let in a goal that a Sunday League goalkeeper should have saved, but it wasn't all his fault that England were rubbish over the whole ninety minutes.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)04:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing to think how many people spend their hard-earned unemployment benefit on Sky subscriptions to pay the £150,000 a week salaries of England footballers. Since Italia 90, England have won only two games in the knockout stages of a major tournament (Denmark 3-0 in 2002 [51] and Ecuador 1-0 in 2006 [52]) They lost all of the others, including Iceland last night. On this type of form, Elvis will turn up on Shergar before England win a major tournament.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)09:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He’s got Momentum – but is it taking him in the right direction?
I see Mr Corbyn has finally decided to put up a passionate fight for 'Remain' at last – a shame it's just when nearly everyone else appears to want him to support 'Leave'…. JezGrove (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you act quickly you could get your 15 minutes of time in the shadow cabinet. As long as you are willing to play along and vacate when the music starts up again in 15 minutes. Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, about that .... If you would kindly leave your resume, I will fast-track it and put it at the top of the pile. We have an opening coming up in the position of "prime minister", and we haven't found a good fit yet. The previous employee is leaving us a bit in the lurch. I think you'd be a good fit, and we're all looking forward to having you on our team. Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what this tells us about the next leader of the UK, but one anagram of the Tory party leadership contenders' surnames - Crabb, Fox, Gove, Leadsom, May - is 'Foxglove Academy mobs bar'. Presumably it doesn't bode too well for former Education Secretary Gove? One thing I AM sure of is how glad I am that there's no 'r' in 'Gove', so I'm definitely NOT related (insert your own 'r's hole joke here…) JezGrove (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. I'll try and take a look. I don't know that album at all, so that would be very interesting. It already looks very good. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your polite note, Verbcatcher. And thank you for not threatening to block me, as another editor did a short time ago, for a similar misdemeanour. Thanks also for the reminder of that useful tool. As my edit summary over there may have suggested, I was "having difficulty in paraphrasing what seem to be a set of clear facts". In fact, I seem to have particular difficulty with descriptions of places of architectural interest that can be found at official listings such as coflein.gov.uk. I think architectural terms are meant to be quite precise and cannot easily be paraphrased. And my own personal architectural vocabulary is, in any case, somewhat limited, I think. So I'm going to delete most that description and hope that someone (perhaps your good self?) could demonstrate how the source text can be adequately paraphrased. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My father enjoyed talking about a player getting "faked out of their jock strap" Well Robson-Kanu did that to three Belgians on that second goal :-) What a Friday night it is for the teams fans. Have a great weekend M and other tpw's. MarnetteD|Talk21:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even more comforting that the win over Belgium wasn't reliant on a goal from Mr Bale - the team is stronger than some commentators had acknowledged. JezGrove (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Portugal 2 - Wales 0. Two good goals. Wales, you still played really very well and deserved something on the scoreboard. Da iawn, tîm! Rydych chi wedi gwneud i ni ymfalchïo. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul. Thanks for the note. I must admit I am sceptical. I've seen other material removed by those who think "an opinion piece" is just that and is not of any consequence unless reported by someone notable, or "an expert". I think even broadsheet editorials don't always qualify for inclusion these days. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must confess I wasn't familiar with him either. But I've removed it anyway, since really it states something that's fairly obvious. No doubt UKIP would have rallied its supporters to sign the petition had the result been to remain. This is Paul (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that amazing relief carving "first time round", as they say. The Cambridge Singers one has the words and music, which is useful. But I thought this one sounded "more live". (Let's hope there aren't any "unresolved copyright issues" to contend with). A beautiful piece. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I sang under Rutter's (spontaneous) conducting hands once, - look for his name here, 1998. Never managed these so far. DYK that Ferdinand Dugué was written by an author banned on the French WP and working miracles here? So much talent wasted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He introduced the Magnificat to a hall full of choral conductors. We sang the Childhood Lyrics, he made a comment and then - surprise! - started conducting them, all five, in good spirits, and then said: "I completely forgot that I composed them." - Did you know that I wrote the Magnificat article? And the other? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
==Abusing checkuser== outside
Hi, I'm contacting you (and @Ritchie333:) because I saw the ANI report and because I have the similar case as you.
Apparently, some experienced editors have found a nice loophole on how to ban any editor they wish.
Your ISP uses a certain range of ip addresses. For instance mine uses several ranges, one being 89.164.xxx.xxx. Apparently, the only thing that is needed to block a person is to accuse him of being a sock of someone who uses the same ISP. Then they both will have the same ip prefix and appear they are the same person.
I still haven't figured out the way they find ip behind a username. However, requesting cu until a suitable candidate is found can work, especially if a suitable candidate had used several isps.
I come from Croatia where User:Asdisis is that candidate. There are only a few isps in Croatia so it's not hard to ban a lot of people as socks.
Here's how to ban someone. The discussion [55]. The user that you want to ban [56]. The repeated cu requests outside spi [57].
Look dude, you were suspected of being a sock of Asdisis, and CU confirmed that; no SPI report is necessary for a well-evidenced suspicion of sockpuppetry. Editing logged out is block evasion, and you will not be allowed to do that. Softlavender (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cu can't confirm anything, except if 2 users had used the same ip in relatively short time. I have no idea who this [61] is, and cu had apparently confirm that we are both Asdisis. Cu are being abused and that's a fact. I didn't contact you but this this user who may understand, since he has the same case where "cu had confirmed" something he knows it's false. If not abused, then that cu has a heck lot of false positives. 89.164.143.178 (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Softlavender (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Keith Emerson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Catlemur (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
![[2]](http://i.imgur.com/KBKctaH.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[54]](https://derekblogster.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/hector.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)