User talk:Martinevans123

↓ Jump to bottom of page ↓

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.

Martin, As you archive so regularly (unlike some editors ...) I thought that this would
a) Brighten up your page, and
b) Add a serious tone amidst all the hilarity.
All the best to you and yours –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 11:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. A lovely picture. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made a little seasonal update - hope you don't mind! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. The snow has almost vanished.
A Christian feast commemorating the resurrection of Christ; the first Sunday following the full moon that occurs on or next after the vernal equinox, neither earlier than March 22 nor later than April 25.
I hate this BST ... why can't we stick with good old GMT? (... it follows the sun after all)
Cheers!
— Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 10:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• A brand of choc ice manufactured by the British Wall's ice cream
• the act of eating

now, I ask you, what kind of alphabetical (or significance) order is that?!!

Yours, aye John Lemon

Have always loved that record. Good compilation of photographs ... who is the geezer in the middle — at 1 min 32 secs? –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 20:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, he always reminded me of Nixon!

Oh! Of course. I knew that really –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 20:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Jukebox

... 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!!

Please don't donate generously any more (.... and add whatever you like!!):

Jukeboxland - never try and sneakily enter at your own risk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
All deleted, on the advice of User:Fram, in case there is a copyright problem.

Blocks all round?

!

"They've got womanly breasts under pale mauve vests,

Shoes like dead pigs' noses,

Cornflake packet jacket, catalogue trousers,

A mouth what never closes."

Please, Mr. Admin-robot, don't be a Blockhead.

Oi! Oi! ... Cornflake packet jacket, catalogue trousers, A mouth what never closes...

Their shapeless haircuts don't enhance, Their ghastly patterned shirts.. (allegedly)

"I'm a tail dragger, I wipe out my tracks"

• What do you call a boomerang that doesn't come back? A stick!

• I couldn't quite remember how to throw a boomerang, but eventually it came back to me.Boing

• The other day I held the door open for a clown. I thought it was a nice jester.clown

Father Jackum's polyphonic retort generator

Enjoy .micro.dot.cotton (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"OMFG". Not seen you for a while, Dot! I thought you'd been sent down for at least 30 years for giving Nasty Nick his last ever WP:GAR. But what a lovely musical gift! Hours of Manchester fun. lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of malicious tongues round 'ere, and you know me, I ain't one to gossip, but apparently Ethel's ghost still lurks in the corridors, and has been seen at night asking "where's my willy?" .micro.dot.cotton (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Ooo, tongues-a-wagging, eh? That's the last thing you need, dearie. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC) ... but everyone needs a friendly ghost!

[1] EEng (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

A great tool for all new users, I feel... "Big hello to big Father Jack Wayne, xylophone." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC) In years to come, future civilisations will say "Ah, so Wikipedia was useful, after all."

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		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)

User:Ritchie333 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

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}}

Martinevans123

A Tarot Card

Editor of the Week for the week beginning February 27, 2016

9 years and 77,000 plus edits, wit and humor hide an unsung hero. Daily work at articles to make the encyclopedia better without much reward.

Recognized for

his witty banter and Private Eye-esque visual humour

Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk 19:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

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 Talk 20:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm very pleased to see that you are keeping up the old traditions. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Very well deserved it for your amazing contributions! Congratulations! Yash! 20:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Haha. Well, as Debbie might say .... "I'm always touched by your presents, dear." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• ... as I said three years ago ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Gerda, I will always treasure your precious music-related gift... in fact, I've had it sewn into my Blackforest lederhosen weightlifting belt. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Better as part of the Charivari, I guess, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes. "Rough "cat" music" sounds fine to me! [2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

We miss an article on your trophee, seriously! Cat music is not all there is to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, as Google tells me: "Traditionally, it is used by men in the codpiece of costume lederhosen worn." I'll see what I can do! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

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 Talk 22:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I often do feel just like running away.... But chosing the right t-shirt can be such a delicate task (boyo) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Many many congrats M. This is well deserved - thanks so much for all you do here at WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 22:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, MarnetteD. That's very nice of you. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• All I can say is ... WTF? Softlavender (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Just chill, Softy. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• All I can say is Runaway was one of my favorites at 14 yrs old. Buster Seven Talk 05:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC). You can keep the Award!!! Buster Seven Talk 05:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:: please confirm receipt of that large Paypal payment, which seems to have paid off this time. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought we were just going to settle quietly for a pony and a Greek island? Draws less attention to the taxman. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Darn it, Threesie! There's no need to make a song and dance about this. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Jeez.... talk about an "embarrassment of riches".... I now appear looking like some medieval ballet dancer, wielding a rustic baseball bat, with a low-slung Bavarian jockstrap and half-mast socks from the trenches. Do you take me for a complete fool?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I count myself very lucky to get this glittering award. A Ram Invents123 (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

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 Talk 07:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's me corrected and suitably slimmed. But you know what they say "... wherever the US Army goes, the fungos too. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Richly deserved but surely questions must be asked?! However, a celebratory clue is deserved: 123 across, Confused road tract deals a trump (5,4). As a long term fan of your work I go weak at the knees at this award but supporter wilt is dangerous. By the way, Rob Evans wants to know if he can have his sock back if you've finished posing... 321 Vas Boner (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ah yes, boyo bach, you must be one of the "Boners of Bonymaen." Very big in the valleys, by all accounts! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC) p.s. those "Buster 7 socks" are a flashy and contemporary fashion statement and I'm not giving them back!!

So long as they are good herding dog socks with a royal pedigree, then hang on to them, but do keep them pulled up. Robevans123 (talk) 23:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, feck!

RIP Frank. Shaken but never stirred. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Now, and what do you say to a WikiCup? "Feck off, cup!" Mrs Doyle ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on..... Martinhacket123 (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Other music, the old tune

Mabbettsville, New York, - I wonder for how many years such a name will be mentioned while the person of the name hasn't added a not-that-horrible-word-again to any article with conflict potential in years, to my knowledge? Nor did I, if we don't count Alfonso und Estrella where I truly didn't expect conflict after checking creation. See classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Best not mention Piggsville or Wingville. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Will avoid. Did you look at the lovers? Here are some of the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did and a very fine looking article it is. Quite a long list there. But tell me, how do you decide on "show" or "hide"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see it until recently and tried to make it finer. Nothing to hide. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I must admit your preferred version looked fine to me. Standardisation can be a bit waring. Perhaps one day article content could be stable while the lead image/ layout of the info box could vary at random! A different view each time you select the page! Might make things more interesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I asked on Classical music what others think, but nobody so far dared to go. I think these navboxes go nicely together, and these don't. I made two for Schubert, one including the operas, one of them alone, - no win even with Mr. Piggy's help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I must admit I'm used to seeing navboxes at the bottom and infoboxes at the top! It's the stuff in the middle that really matters, I think. But, who knows what's possible.... in a parallel universe! Martinevans123 (talk)

Mr. and I agree ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

One simply can't trust these weird Classical music types. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Martinevans123. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've almost got to the bottom of that flow diagram. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Martinevans123. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much Arbo-Bot. I might even cram in some "last minute" questions for the other candidates in the next 7 days and 5 hours (if that's permitted, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Sarek, I fear TRM is still answering questions too quickly for you to delete them? Is five days to go still too close to the deadline to ask a question? I usually leave voting, like monitoring of questions and answers, to the very last minute. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And ... and ... and

Hi Martin. Repeated "and"s in a sentence are poor style rather than grammar. They often indicate a juvenile or a non-anglophone. Compare: "Fred packed his mask and snorkel and regulator and fins in his bag" with "Fred packed his mask, snorkel, regulator and fins in his bag". It was disapproved of in Junior school, but that was aeons ago when old-fashioned grammar was taught! Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

How exciting! Monday morning scuba. So the sentence in contention is this one:

"Although made prior to the 2004 tsunami disaster, it was not broadcast until 2 April 2005, and was repeated on 24 January 2007 and 16 April 2017."

If it gives you deep grammar joy to remove that first "and", please be my guest. I will not revert again, even though it sounds awkward to me! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll let it be for a while. Meanwhile I prefer this type of grammar joy! Have a nice day, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, very tuneful. Maybe I can tempt an ArbCom candidate from his habitual MoS policy wonkery lair, to proffer an opinion? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

This stirred memories of a sentence with five consecutive ands in a row, but a quick search revealed this effort (last bullet) by Martin Gardner (no relation) which includes a staggering 46 ands in a row (which, in turn, comprises "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and", and "and and and"), all of which comes to an amazing 68 consecutive ands (with an oxford comma thrown in for good measure, which should really be played ad infinitum), which comprises... Robevans123 (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Pfft! We'll have none of your highfalutin Oxbridge nonsense here, thank you very much. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Eh, watch it la, you're doin me head in. I'm from the Liverpudlian school on Shakespearian authorship - Ernie Wise was drafted in to lighten up Titus Andronicus (the play what Willy wrote). Robevans123 (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Cum 'ed, cum 'ed! Calm down! Calm down! Titus Andronicus?? ... Titus Atick, more like! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC) I think you'll find the correct term is "propa spun me frickhen swede."

Those are different uses of "and" and the sentence is fine. [Self-referential construction intentional.] The first "and" joins two clauses, the second separates two items in a list. The objectionable constructions would be something like "... it was not broadcast until 2 April 2005, and was repeated on 24 January 2007, and was repeated again on 16 April 2017" (run-on, joining three clauses with ands), or "... it was broadcast on 2 April 2005, and 24 January 2007, and 16 April 2017" (three list items joined by ands). However it could be rewritten to avoid perception of overuse of and: "... it was not broadcast until 2 April 2005; this was re-aired on 24 January 2007 and 16 April 2017." Something like that, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Y'all know who to vote for, folks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

James Watt

I've answered the question you wrote in your edit summary on the article's talk page.AndrasSkot (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC) In short there is a colour portrait but I'm not sure about copyright so am not going to upload the photo of it.

Hi, AndrasSkot. It seems you have now uploaded it? It looks much better. It seems its date was 1806 and that it was painted "after Sir William Beechey. So I have adjusted the caption accordingly. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Iiiiit's Chriiiiiiiiisssssstttmaaaaaaaaas!!!!

Can you do me a quick favour? I was contemplating sneaking Merry Xmas Everybody into OTD tomorrow, then I noticed that the claimed release date of 7 December 1973 isn't actually in any of the sources given. Unfortunately, since the rest of the internet has now treated this as gospel, it's almost impossible to get a genuinely independent source that confirms the date. The best I can find is this scan from Melody Maker advertising its release, but I can't make out the date on the scan (it looks like 9 December but that was a Sunday). Records were generally released on a Friday, so 7 December sounds likely but not definitively provable. Any other ideas? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Will try and look later when I have more time. But "don't hold your breath", as they say in Wolverhampton. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"I'll get meself a Cup-a-Soup ...." "You'll get nothing Neville until you tidy those sources up!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if The Rambling Man knows? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I expect he'll be too busy answering "last minute" questions for the ArbCom election. We all know he's much better than the other candidates. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"likely but not definitively provable" - I see the two women in front, naturally ;) - Iiiits St. Nicholas Day, refs will grow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Run, run, reindeer?? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Oi! Threesie did you say you had found a scan?? For some strange reason your link brings up 46 cats Ta muchly. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC) .... all I can find is this which, as you suspect, is probably cobbled together from WP anyway. Good job that article uses only the best possible sources, eh?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs)

Despite over-playing it to the point of irritation, it's still my favourite Christmas song; I've covered it in several bands and there's nothing like playing it as the last song of a gig and just repeating the last chorus with crowds of drunks all singing along at full volume. A British institution. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you old rock dinosaurs. I suspect you live in a cave all year and only come out on December 7th!! "tee-hee"... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC) p.s. I shall have to leave, you as the gorgeous Alice beckons on BBC Four....

After Dark caption

Thanks for your comment re the Christine Keeler caption and apologies for not making myself sufficiently clear. Might I explain? I was responsible for uploading the image and it is indeed from a Channel 4 edition of After Dark. However the possessive ("Channel 4's After Dark) is not strictly accurate: a quick look at the article about this programme shows that during its history it was transmitted by two (indeed rival) broadcasters. It was this which led to my reversion.

Strictly speaking, if the programme is "anyone's", it belongs (as per the copyright of the image) to the production company Open Media - but not only would using this have a certain promotional flavour, it is not an edit I would be comfortable with making (see my Talk page for why).

Hope that helps. AnOpenMedium (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi AnOpenMedium. No worries. I have replied over at Talk:Christine Keeler. I'd also appreciate your views there re "Laleham US Airforce Base." Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, I've responded on the other pages. Airforce bases, oh, that's way above my pay grade, very sorry! But there must be a hard cell of dedicated Wikimilitarists who can help you? AnOpenMedium (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, above mine too! It's been written in a book (available via Google Books), so it must be correct (??). But, yes I might be forced to approach them. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Secret Balloting

Was implemented as far as I can tell as a result of this - and has not been actually tested since in a formal RFC. The amusing thing is there is no way a 57% majority would be classed now as 'consensus' without extremely strong arguments in favour of it and no real arguments against. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I was searching for a convincing argument as to why secret is better for the WP community than public. Still searching. Although most "democratic" voting is by secret ballot, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The majority of voting for a choice between candidates is secret. Even the less secret 'coloured balls into a bag' is meant to be secret. The US approach where the actual election of the President is down to the electoral college system means that you would know which way an elector is going to vote. Where a vote is not on people but on process (such as individual members of whatever parliament/senate etc voting on a bill) the voting is open - otherwise how could you know your representative is representing your interests? They could say one thing then vote a different way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I participated in an academic survey of WP decisionmaking practices a while back. There were a bunch of questions about whether the usual RfC practices work well, and what I thought of alternatives including secret ballot stuff, among others. I have non-rigid opinions on this stuff, but have come to the following tentative conclusions:

• Our open !voting system favors a meritocracy over mob-rule, because "votes" are generally tied to rationales, which everyone can see, and closers can discount pure votes without rationales, and votes with stupid rationales.
• It is seriously flawed in that the first few commenters who provide rationale have a undue effect on the outcome (e.g. editors like me who subscribe to a constant stream of RfCs via WP:FRS and look for RfCs that FRS doesn't tell us about, have a disproportionate effect on WP governance. It's also broken because of increasing failure by closers to discount no-rationale and bogus-rationale !votes thus turning them into actual votes (processes like RM and RfC are increasingly just vote-counting with less and less closer regard for policy- or source-based validity of arguments presented).
• This could be mitigated by a replacement system in which pro and con arguments (about a proposition, or for each of several multiple-choice options) were presented in a table, and below each was a section for refutation arguments, and below that a space for rebuttal of the refutation. Each of these could be in successive collapse boxes so as not to text-wall people. This is the format used by, e.g., the Voter Information Pamphlet series put out in major cities by the League of Women Voters; it can make very complex propositions much easier to understand, though it is not totally immune to manipulation or oversimplification.
  • The actual voting would then be done by secret ballot, after closure of the argumentation-presentation period.
  • The first half of this could simply be done with templates, and a policy change (e.g. that anyone is empowered to revert as disruptive any vote like "Support" or "Oppose" wrongly placed in the presentational material, since it would not be an actual rationale but just exhortation/campaigning). The second half would require an actual secret ballot system be deployed. It would also require a "voting is open on X" notification system. And a standard for what percentage of votes is needed for what kind of proposals; this should include some kind of proportional/weighted voting system. It may sound complex, but our XfD processes are actually more difficult to use than this.
  • It will probably not happen within my lifetime, if ever, for the same change-phobic inertia reason that causes us to still have a shitty adminship system. It would likely have to be imposed by WMF.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Stanton, that all sounds very sensible. So probably will never happen. But thanks for sharing here. "One day all elections will be made this way" (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Keith Chegwin

On 11 December 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Keith Chegwin, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Step. hen. I wasn't a huge fan of Cheggers. But he always seemed to be good fun, without an all-consuming ego. Sorry he's gone. Wish the article had a suitable photo of him - currently sadly lacking. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Almost unrelated: DYK that I had a great woman for a DYK, and the next day an image arrived? It's still on top of my talk, but I will change it for the soprano from Wales after sleep. The "pleading" image ;) - The Germans had pictured today that the sun of justice should rise in our time, - can't be said enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

it's now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

in my memories, Manfred Jung comes between "a debate about unsimulated sex on screen" and "Kitchen Frenzy and Pure Reason", DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Strewth. There is even an article on that debate here on WP Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 16:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you turn to Pure Reason? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the gift that keeps on coming (um, or something like that...) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Speculative comes to mind Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 16:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"It's verra, verra nahce"

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For an increasingly refined and judicious stream of talk-page levity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you were already on my list when I dropped one off for EEng. You two are like peas in a pod. Some kinda weird space pod, that probably has a Canadian-sounding android in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

"I'm deeply touched" (as they say in Ystalyfera). But this is the only PoD I'll be sharing with that deranged loon !! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC) ... and fellow devotees will remember just how exotic Ystalyfera really is ....

Too tired for a new thread: DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Alas, with a nailed down coffin lid, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Seriously for a moment: that was stable for a while. Then someone counted "votes", disregarding that some changed their mind. Not worth protesting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, for a moment. I know exactly what you mean. But just like Dave I hear Frédéric knocking on the underside - he just doesn't want to be in that box, does he. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Back to ooold levity ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha. Thank you so much for that. What a wonderful thread. Bish one of the wittiest observers here, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Coffee, do you also like it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

More of a darjeeling man myself. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I called Coffee, because he tries to argue with logic in an ibox RfC, which tells me that he knows too little about the background ;) - ... and this little thread sums it up the shortest., seriously. I archived it, in 2014, as "best remembered as a farce". The RfC asks a question which is wrong from the start (should have or not), instead of saying what kind, and that it would be restoring. It was removed with in innocent edit summary ("per GA") in hundreds of expanding edits, so even if you watched the article you wouldn't have noticed, - and then they are so surprised that the question "what happened?" comes up every now and then. I don't care if that article has an ibox or not, but I care about the treatment of everybody who dares to ask that question like a warrior who probably works for me ;) - I seriously hope for more levity in 2018. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I think we all know, I enjoy good levity. ;) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Good to see you around! Don't waste your time in boxes, I can tell you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Meghan Markle

Please help - we have the one editor - User:Surtsicna - who refuses to have both a separate ancestry section for Markle (on her page) and also states that her proven ancestors - as published in the Washington Post (page 3) and the New York Times (page 5), are only "trivia" and of no interest to anyone. This editor continues to stir up other editors. Your assistance is always appreciated. 101.182.160.40 (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear IP locating to Thornbury, Victoria... Always appreciated? You'll have to remind me. So why was that entry soured only to the Daily Express? Alas, I am immediately reminded of the sarcastic and sceptical "How they are related" feature. I guess we might expect to see a section and a tree like the one given for "Our Kate", since she does have two notable ancestors: Philip Wentworth and Christopher Hussey (died 1686). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summary made me think about talking about private eye.  Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 14:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You can't beat a bit of Blue-eyed Christmas Soul, can you!! --Rudolph the Red-Nosed Soulboy 123 (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Whoops! What? Cripes! Chiz sa Molesworth.

Oopsy bumbum, I'm so sorry about this. I definitely need to drink much more alcohol when editing in order to fine-tune my reflexes for the crazy pace of this crazy place ... apologies. In next week's episode I accidentally delete myself whilst trying to tie my shoelaces. Tsk. Sorry Martin! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If and when I ever sober up, I might even bother to reply to this nonsense! But any more shenanigans like this, buster, and it’s a Yuletide trip to ANI for you, Sonny Jim. With brass knobs on. Yours ever, Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A windmill with a mouse in and he wasn't grousin'

Over to you then to compose a new Wiki song-type singing masterpiece of an article ! Even though Adrian Hill was born in my home town, the current article states - "He was married to Chrissy from 1989 to 2001; together they had a son, Simon (born 1966)" so clearly I am no good keeping tabs on this Wiki malarkey. Also, why is that a song that only just snuck into our Top 30, remains so memorable. It's not just me - note the clog dancing mice at the bottom of this. Written by Dicks and Rudge too... what's not to like.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Derek. I blame Ed 'Stewpot' Stewart on Junior Choice, of course. But remind me not to flag up essential new articles in edit summaries again. I might have a go, unless Guy beats me to it. But it’s hardly an R&B classic is it!? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC) p.s. I've always found that echoey laugh ending a bit scary.

Blame dear old Stewpot all you like, you put your head above the parapet. Repeat after me, "I must never never ever again mention new articles in edit summaries". R&B classic or not, I know that Guy's appearances on Wiki these days are spasmodic at best, so you have nothing to fear from an edit war with him. Actually, I have a horrible feeling that Guy might throw in his chips here as part of some New Year Resolution. I am not sure any pleading from thee and me will make much difference, but we surely can not afford to lose our online best buddy and Wiki editing champ. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC) p.s. My favourites included "Don't Jump off the Roof, Dad" (Tommy Cooper) and Frankie Howerd's brilliantly maniacal rendition of "Three Little Fishies" - I always wondered what became of those tiddlers !

Likewise with Tommy and Frankie. But please never forget the glorious "Runaway Train" (by Michael Holliday) (who sounded to me a lot like Bing on that one): [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC) p.s. I'd never dare to call Guy "spasmodic"!

And let's not forget Charlie Drake with Splish Splash, the first vinyl I bought, which I think had Hello My Darlings on the B-side, not being flamboyant about it... Robevans123 (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Nor, of course "There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly" by Burl Ives.... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please feel free to contribute at A Windmill in Old Amsterdam. Thanks! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC) and I'm not even going to mention "Ball Park Incident" by Wizzard which was a personal musical youthful revelation for me and inspired a lifelong obsession with saxophones. Here's Roy, 43 years later, still sounding great, at The Robin in Bilston

And so it came to pass that I wrote on the Roy Wood article talk page back in March 2006 - "Roy Wood - demi-god in my book." It's still there - check it out. I was in Wiki short trousers back then, so did not appreciate that you were not supposed to add your opinion on the artist. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Back to the subject matter and I seriously doubt that the song sold a million copies. I know The Daily Telegraph is considered a RS, but to pretend "A Windmill in Old Amsterdam" rivalled The Beatles singles for sales at that time is more than pushing it a bit. I can not find any other source that makes such a claim. Having said that, I initially rather doubted the Ivor Novello Award claim too, although it is well documented as being given such a heady status. Probably yet another case of reporting what a RS states, whilst seriously doubting its validity. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm equally skeptical. But who needs truth in an encyclopedia when you can have verifiability? I neglected to add the Torygraph as a source to those other instances. You may wish to revert! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I would rather eat worms than be caught saying anything too nice about the Torygraph. That said, there was some really weird stuff went on Back In The Day™ with novelty records and instrumentals and other kinds of ... odditities. I do wonder. Arr. Wonder, I do. Arrrrh. It is a h*ll of a lot of records though. (Takes out pipe and puts cardie on). DBaK (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"We'll have no million sellers here, if you please. This is a local windmill for local mice!" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That last edit contains a truly troubling juxtaposition of links. I'm going for a nice lie-down now. DBaK (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I missed last night's episode of The League of Gentlemen, because I was at the panto at Hull New Theatre. Oh no, I wasn't, oh yes, I was... etc. There is a statue immediately opposite the theatre's frontage of David Whitfield - a Hullensian of some note. Another of equal note is Reece Shearsmith, one of the said Gentlemen. What you may not have noticed is that there were two references to Kingston upon Hull in the first two episodes of The League of Gentlemen's recent revival. In the first a character refers to picking up sandwiches from the bins behind Hammonds; whilst the second mentioned Pearson Park. And so, via a rather pleasant stroll around a gem of the East Riding of Yorkshire, we arrive back to a "local windmill for local mice" and dear old Ronnie Hilton. I trust that completes your oop north education for this evening, and the City of Vultures bods slip me a few bob for "fine PR work". Regards, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff. I hear the librarians are a bit weird, But it's always nice to learn something. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"tis the season...."

Hello Martinevans123: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ―Buster7 ☎ 22:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Cheers Buster7! "And the same to you... with brass knobs on." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all!

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! Yes, that looks pretty white. Quite biting in fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	Holiday barnstar
	You deserve a holiday barnstar, but this barn flake was as close as I could come. And best holiday wishes to you. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, much better than a bran flake, I'm sure!! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC) p.s. "This video is not available at my location" (probably like mine aren't with you!)...

sadly. It was Steve Martin on Saturday Night Live asking for holiday wishes. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that right charley, he should have looked no further than Henry VI, Part 2: [4] Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Great stuff M. I mighta known Bill would have something to do with it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

‘Tis the season...

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme📞📧 07:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Gee thanks!! Oooo-eee, oooo-eee, baby, won't you let me take you on a sea cruise?? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Watched it again this morning - *lol* - dropped by to make sure my Christmas greeting also included my New Year well-wishes. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

"The one that's wrapped in dark, dark green and made for a teen!" Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Martinevans123!!


Hi Martinevans123, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Your message almost works at 100% zoom :) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

And unfortunately as I found out today by quite a lot of people it's apparently worse under 100% , Ah well it's the thought that counts lol, Anyway have a great Crimbo & New Year! :), –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Heddwch ac ewyllys da

		Compliments of the season Wishing you all the best for 2018 — good health, sufficient wealth, peace and contentment
		Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 18:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gareth, your message is a real flyer (maybe a little more successful, actually!). Peace and goodwill to you too. Very best wishes. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Worst plane ever built. Thank you! Good to hear from my pal, Mehefinheulog. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 20:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Christmas greeting

	A Shaker Christmas wish
	Give good gifts, one to another Peace, joy and comfort gladly bestow Harbor no ill 'gainst sister or brother Smooth life's journey as you onward go. Broad as the sunshine, free as the showers. So shed an influence blessing to prove; Give for the noblest of efforts your pow'rs; Blest and be blest, is the law of love.

Best wishes for happy editing into 2018 and beyond! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Nicci... I could use a martini. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Off to singing at your church, fröhlich --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Pffff, Shakers didn't need no martinis to party. Just ask Aaron Copeland. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the the very best of the season!
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia, here's to hoping your holiday time is wonderful and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old. CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Shearonink (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Sharron, whoever you are! I don't know whether to offer you a Christmas woof or a festive miaow Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC) [5]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Martinevans123!!


Hi Martinevans123, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel doubly blessed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Whoops sorry!, Well two's better than one! . –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and back at you!

Dear Martin, thank you so much for the stunning Christmas greeting! All the best to you and yours too. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's greetings

There's a star over, er, Sweden...
	To Martin Season's greetings from PaleCloudedWhite
	PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC) (Late delivery courtesy of an inebriated Columba livia domestica)

Someone tried to stop the pigeon? Nah... I'd call that perfect timing. Thanks, Paley. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hoots the noo.

		Happy Hogmanay!
		How have you been, Martinevans123? Sorry I've been deathly silent lately (always the life and soul of the party). Hope you had a nice Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Kez. --Kieronoldham (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Blimey, Kez. You've certainly started early! You'll have to wait for mine. But thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It's God's will, Martin. :D Seriously, all the best, and kudos to you and EEng. I always looked to you.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, nice track. Had forgotten about that one. I'm more of a Disorder man myself. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Martinevans123. AfC submissions Random submission ~6 weeks 1,031 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

And lo, unto them an angel did appear ...

[6] Merry Christmas, Martin, and Happy whatever you lot call New Years (it's hard enough for me to recall Hogmanay, and that's actually in something resembling the English language). Cheers and best wishes for 2018! Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

God bless Wikipedia and the BBC; therein I have found information on Calennig and other matters of note. – Softlavender (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, "Softie". We're all bezzie mates, really anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Rodw - Martin, Rod: Who'd have thought! I signed up about ten days ago. It's great. But, Jeez, you will not believe the amount of promotional cr*p that comes through! The number of vanity biographies, or articles designed to promote commercial enterprises, or both is just staggering. Anyway, I'm sure you'll both enjoy it as much as I have, and it's certainly a job that needs doing. Happy New Year and all the very best for 2018. KJP1 (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I'm sure Rodw will get through a lot more than me! And he won't be taking bribes either. Thanks KJP. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Rodw - This is a very nifty little tool that helps you keep track of your reviews, [7]. KJP1 (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to do some of these - unlikely to be high on my priority list at present though. I will take a look once the "toolbar" thingy works - which it didn't yesterday.— Rod ^talk 08:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Help, please...

I'm trying to get a digital clock and calendar to reflect -6 UTC (Texas time), and waaahhh, it won't work for me. Na1k said do this but I must not be doing it correctly . ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm only confident with Oklahoma. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Whaaat? Why doesn't Texas fall into the Gulf of Mexico? Clue: the answer is a test of time. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be all okely dokely now? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yessirree Bob - Northamerica1000 got it fixeded. I learned how to do it now so (hopefully) I won't have to interrupt the busy schedules of others in the future. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm so busy I've got no time to even reply to this nonsense. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Do Not Go Gentle, from obscure grindcore bands to synth pop duos

It cracks me up, the pop culture references now included in "Do not go gentle into that good night." Perhaps our suggestion that certain criteria (such as significance) be applied was too stringent? I think that there's a lamp store in La Crosse, Michigan called Rage Against the Dying of the Light. I'll add it if I can find a reference.  :) Julie JSFarman (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

A picture would be nice! After all, Wiki editors are all just "broken ghosts with glow-worms in their heads"  :) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop editing articles that don't belong to you

HassleEverybodyUnconditionally??
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Martinevans123. It has been brought to my attention that you recently edited an article about Harold Shipman. Here at Wikipedia, we appreciate the efforts of people like you who edit articles. However, this particular article is owned by another user. His name is Drchriswilliams. Now, as I said, here at Wikipedia we appreciate people like you who edit articles, but you should know your place and refrain from editing articles that do not belong to you. If you keep editing his article, we will have no choice but to do some kind of gypsy spell on you. For more information, please refer to his talk page here. Thank you for your consideration and, whilst we here at Wikipedia appreciate people like you who edit articles and what not, I really hope I don't have to tell you this again. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Good grief, Martin, what were you even thinking? Softlavender (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Lol. Ooh, you're a right bitch ain't ya, LEU? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Hello Sir and/or Madam. Here at Wikipedia we appreciate people like you who edit articles. However, unless you are Martinevans123’s legal representative and/or gypsy-spell-defender, this really does not concern you. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC) I really must add MORE SHOUTY EDIT SUMMARIES!!!. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC) ACTUALLY SOFTLAVENDER I preferred your original, non-edited version. Happy New Year to you and Martin! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 16:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Due to your continued belligerence and lack of willingness to co-operate with my investigation, I have reported you to Islington Council’s Defective Street Lighting unit. I hope it does not affect our friendship. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC) I'm sure it will be a real bonus. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC) PEOPLE! It's 2018 in Australia already. Let's turn over a new leaf and have kindness and goodwill for at least 15 minutes. Softlavender (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC) I'm willing to offer 14 and a half minutes... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC) It is my motto to love everybody unconditionally no matter what year it is in Austria. There will be no deviation from this on my part. Peace be on all of you. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC) On second thoughts, make that 13. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC) May I join in? I have no idea what you all are talking about. But does it matter? Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC) In the rainforest, it is hard to turn over a new leaf because humans keeps cutting all the trees down so there are no new leafs to turn over. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC) I'd prefer to see Wikipedia as a giant steaming compost heap where all those fallen leaves can rot down nicely. But I guess I'm being overly charitable. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Might I politely ask why you include links to other Wikipedia articles in each of your replies? I am concerned that I am being insulted without realising it. Please note that I have Osgood–Schlatters disease so it is important to be nice to me at all times. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Osgood–Schlatters needs a lot of work. Don't worry though, I'll make it obvious if I can. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC) All I can infer from that is that you think I am a vacuous Irish boyband singer and possibly a homosexual. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC) My painful lumps are a bit higher than the knee... Robevans123 (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Oh shucks, was it really that obvious? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC) p.s. LEU, you could be great wiki editor, if you just avoided articles and Talk pages. ( Buttinsky) Huh? It's New Year's Eve, not April 1st. Atsme📞📧 17:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC) It seems we're just warming up. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Beyond that...💨💨💨...then comes the 🔥🔥🔥. Atsme📞📧 17:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Lest we forget, the main supermarkets shut at 7pm so be quick to stock up on pot noodles and milk ready to bring forth 2018. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Will someone please use WP:TWINKLE to WP:WARN "LoveEverybodyUnconditionally" about using misleading edit summaries, as they did here? Softlavender (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I'm already queuing for Hogmanay Pasties at ASDA. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Hogmanay Pasties? Atsme📞📧 19:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Whoops. Seems I've dropped a clanger there. It's an old Welsh delicacy Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Does anyone here at Wikipedia appreciate people like me who edit articles? LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC) No. General Ization Talk 20:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) Yes. Please go back to doing that. --NeilN talk to me 20:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks Sir for your believes in my Wikipedia editing abilities. I will right a book about this one day and your name can be in the in decks. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Just think... 2018 is just hours away.... a whole New Year. I'll have quick whip round for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Comment: Could an uninvolved administrator please close this thread so no more community time is wasted on it? Softlavender (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Martinevans123!

Happy New Year!

Martinevans123,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Well done my precious. But the road is a bit long and goes on and on and on... Robevans123 (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Just leave my ring out of it, if you don't mind. Funny, but it seems more like 11 long years.... Fret ye not, I'm not gonna let them catch me.... Midnightevans123 (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Take the ring from the Main page, the first English Brünnhilde, the 100th women's biography after joining women in red. Remembering the Welsh, of course, who helped me pleading at a time, but the time for pleading is over, I decided to dance and to let go, and now to rejoice and serve ;) - Sing a new song, - I thought that was Psalm 149, others say Psalm 98, - guess what? We are all right, alright? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that Catherine is there. But so many rings!! What's this place coming to?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

circles? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

ever decreasing? Robevans123 (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

a comedy? you can't be serious ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, fair point. We think of you, Gerda, as that simple peasant girl, who always tries rescue something. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the singer who never had training as an actress: "I worked for almost 15 years in a hospital and had many experiences with young and old people, with children, rich and poor, happy and sad people. This is the experience I bring to the stage." - She was quite impressive. In the final monologue, she looks at her mobile, letting images of past happy times pass ;) - Siegfried was Lance Ryan, the one who made Andreas Schager's career by not arriving in time. Now Schager sang the premiere, but I saw Ryan who was very funny at times, especially talking to the three attractive girls at the bar Zum Rheingold bar (pictured). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Today: ... that the English tenor Mark Milhofer appeared as Mozart's Ferrando in Beijing and Moscow, and as Poppea's nurse in Berlin, dressed as a parody of Riff Raff? Remembering a sad day, parody feels good. Going to write moar "out of the deep" though, - Rutter composed it for first cello solo, then alto same melody, deep deep deep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for updating me, Gerda! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Weichet nur, betrübte Schatten, BWV 202, - remember, heard that in Tallinn? ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

.... Danielle de Niese lets it rip. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

WP t-Shirts

? Uhm... If you would like to nominate me here : [8]. I would have no objections (here's hoping) to one of these WP glad-rags . P.S. My cat would like one too. Her size is SSS (very small), chest size 11 inches. Aspro (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

But, of course, my pleasure. You coyly forget your own size. I can't guarantee the cat - in this panto season, suggest she sticks to posh footwear? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC) "Whaddya say, fellas? Nice setta good articles? Now Mary, how's about shakin' it around a little..."

Land of Hope and Glory

Or, in other words, Wikipedia. Lol'ed at your comment. The reason I linked that song, aside from the reference to the hope and glory of Wikipedia itself, was that it was linked in the Christmas Truce page but, interestingly, the song being used during the Christmas Truce is not discussed on the "Land of Hope and Glory" page. I'll add it later if you or someone else doesn't add it before that. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That has always struck me as a very strange choice by the Allied troops. One imagines that a Christmas carol would have been a lot safer. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC) p.s. if "Queens Gambit" is good enough for William Hartston it's good enough for me. But I think I'll stay out of that one for now.

Because of your addition I was further pondering the Christmas truce and, as an adequate-to-semi-good Wikipedia, I want and added a Category:Christmas truce! Thanks for the inspiration. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Disputing Fact

I am well known to the SG team and the edits are true. Please source your changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RushDiggity (talk • contribs) 21:35, 6 January 2018 UTC (UTC)

You need to source your changes as you adding new, unsourced, information to Saint-Gobain. I'm just reverting you, to the version of the article agreed by consensus. I don't need to source anything. You were recently making the same unsourced edits as an anonymous IP, so I warned you on your Talk page: User talk:31.52.29.124. If you are, as you claim "well known to the SG team", you need to stop editing altogether and read WP:COI. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I've got nothing against hermits, thanks. Especially pale ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC) the ones geolocating to Peterborough, I'm not so sure... [9]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	im sorry daddy Catchmemartinevans (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You will be when you're indefinitely blocked. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't find a "space slice" but my sister Dolly does have a rather lovely cake slice, you might like to use. Martinevans123

"Even if misguided,

willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."

Especially by sockpuppets? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I could tempt you with one of my sister Cissy's rather lovely Upside-down cakes?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Finology

You say roonstone, I say rynestone – let's call the whole thing off. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 14:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Gareth, you're such a wiki cowboy. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC) ... but all done in the best possible taste....

Farewell Ray

Raymond Thomas: 29 December 1941 – 4 January 2018

There are times when I think I've found the truth

There are times when I know that I'm wrong

And the days when I try to hide my fears

Bless the days when I'm feeling strong

... don't tell me

.... But time will tell of stars that fell, A million years ago. Memories can never take you back, Home, sweet, home

Oops

Per guidelines I should have collapsed instead of removing since you had commented. I hope you can forgive me even if the rest of the community can't. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I may just bring myself. But I don't think Paul will. And I was on the brink of 13 down too, damn you!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

(The guy has been indeffed per NOTHERE btw) ―Mandruss ☎ 21:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Haha. (Strong Llanelli accent): "I'll 'ave you! You ruddy lazy beggar!!". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC) ...more of Newport's finest

Ray Thomas' Death

I'll just throw this out there without making any edits. Hopefully, you strive for accuracy as much as your readers want accurate information. Ray Thomas' wife Lee issued the following statement today on Ray's cause of death.

"I know a lot of you have been reading that Ray died from prostate cancer and I'd like to set the record straight. He did NOT die from the prostate cancer, he died from a massive heart attack. The prostate cancer was being treated and had been held in check for 6 years."

https://www.facebook.com/FleecityFirkin

Hooter13 (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Hooter. I'll answer your question over at Talk:Ray Thomas. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Jay Kay

Hello!

I only skimmed the source in fairness, after watching a video of what happened. It seems incredibly obvious the pap was in the wrong, but regardless the source actually uses allegedly for both men's behavior. Probably best the article does the same? 80.3.154.91 (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, you are quite right. I've added in that second "alleged", although it now looks a bit clumsy. Crafty of the Standard to bury that second one further down the piece. Is that video in the public domain? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ray Thomas

I was ready to post this one for RD, but then I realize it's 10 days ago... It would be too difficult to stretch this one, so sorry. Alex Shih (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

And I was ready to add all the sources so it would be fit to post. Well 4 Jan was 9 days ago, but that's a shame. So much for changing the nomination date, eh? I guess the rules for a nomination going stale are all clearly written down somewhere. I looked at Wikipedia:In the news/Death criteria, but I couldn't see them. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC) p.s. when did it actually go stale?

It is a shame (it's already January 14 here in Japan). Yeah, I am not sure why it's not written in death criteria, but it is written in Template:In the news (commented out). (Remove any older than 7 days). I don't check ITN all the time, feel free to ping me when something worthy needs to be posted. Alex Shih (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I see. Well, Ray certainly died in Surrey, not Japan. But thanks for the link. That rule doesn't really stack up with the way the nomination was moved to take account of the families wishes in delaying the announcement? I had assumed if a nomination was still live on the nomination page, it was still viable. Looks like it was already stale last night when I finally managed to do the major update. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

p.s. commented out text, on a template page, saying "There should be a maximum of 4 recent deaths. Remove any older than 7 days" isn't exactly in the most visible place, is it? But either it should have been removed on 11 Jan, or it should stay live until tomorrow? Closing it as stale now just makes me feel like all my effort was wasted.

p.p.s. you folks in Japan must have a lot of fun closing stuff at a time that looks to us lazy Brits like it's 7 hours too early. I thought we all worked by UTC? I wonder how many admins wake up even earlier? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. If Masem says so, I think it'll be fine to stretch this then. Alex Shih (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Alex. One day is much better than none. I must learn to keep a better eye on the calendar. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ray Thomas

On 13 January 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ray Thomas, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Alex Shih (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy Pongal, Makar Sankranti, Lohri and Bihu to you!

Happy Thai Pongal, Makar Sankranti, Lohri and Bihu to you!

May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending!  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sanchi

Martin, I was just completing an overhaul of MV Sanchi when you made your changes. I'm afraid I went ahead and made mine, so I may have scotched some of yours. Can you take another look at the article and fix anything you think needs fixing? Thanks. Sca (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, did not realise. Was only tweaking things as it's been bumped at ITN/C. I'll try and take a look. Thanks for telling me. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Snowflake

Ed Davey demonstrates his politically inclusive position

Please do not comment on trivialities and please contribute on the discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So terribly sorry. But I started the discussion thread at Ed Davey and then you kindly barged in before me? And what do you mean by "snowflake" exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Focusing on minutiae does not address the issues with the article, and complaining about layout and who got what done first, is nothing of substance. Please focus on the content of the article, that way the article can be improved. Sport and politics (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any "issues with the article". It looks pretty well-written. What issues do you see? And please don't lecture me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC) p.s. "snowflake"??

Several options. Tap, tap, tappin' at your windowpane to tell you she's in town? Asking for Peruvian Snowflake? Or just a generic disdain for young people. Other possibilities include a focus on fractal minutiae. Hard to tell. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ooooo, what a charming cartoon. Yes, it is hard to tell, but ouch!! I now feel suitably crushed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC) p.s. I'd usually rather tap on this window pane. ... but I'll see ya and raise ya!!

"...an alabaster gnome..."

"I'll have a fourpenny up the Dilly, if you don't mind, my good man."

RIP. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. "He was a man of Nature who forgot his birds and bees"? What an incredibly groovy track. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC) .... Gloucester Bus Station was a very slippery place back in 1975, I'll have you know, with all those bars of soap lying around....

Sadly, not all voiceovers have that je ne sais quoi. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't even know Fiona was doing this kind of stuff any more! But yes, she does sound a little disjointed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Angel Recording Studios

Blimey! It can get a bit hot up in Islington it seems!!

On 21 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Angel Recording Studios, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a former chapel built in 1888 was one of eleven studios involved in the recording of Adele's bestselling album 21? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Angel Recording Studios. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Angel Recording Studios), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gatoclass. Yes, I'm afraid the rumours are true. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Pre-nominal Sir

I've reverted at Ian McKellen and Ringo Starr. The same thing had happened at Ridley Scott and Charlie Chaplin. There's obviously a need for clear instructions somewhere central. --RexxS (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The Manual of Style seems to imply that the "Sir" should be part of the name in the intro and the infobox, but the documentation for the person infobox seems at odds with this. It's not unusual for infoboxes to be at odds with the MoS...

I must admit that I don't like anything above the main title of an infobox, but it does provide a useful link to the honour (but it would be better to re-direct to Knight Bachelor). Robevans123 (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

PS Watched the Two Towers last night - love it when he re-appears as Radox the Green Gandalf the White... Robevans123 (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I was quite confused about this conflict when I was discussing with User:Phinn about Barry Gibb last month. I was very glad of the clear advice from RexxS-press. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Manual of Style doesn't seem to imply that the "Sir" should be part of the name: "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article" (my emphasis on heading). Honorific titles/prefixes, such as "Sir", are included in the infobox header. The infobox heading is the contents of the header of the infobox (inside <th>...</th> in the html). The heading includes three elements on separate lines against a common coloured background. The three elements are supplied by three parameters: |pre-nominals=, |name=, and |post-nominals=. No matter what anyone's aesthetic sensibilities are, "Sir" is not part of anybody's name that I know of. If you don't like multiple lines in the infobox heading, then you could suggest an alternative at Template talk:Infobox person or a similar venue. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that all seems pretty clear. Although there seem to be special cases? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to the MoS in the hope that it makes clearer what an "infobox heading" is. let's see if that helps. That's not a special case; the word you're looking for is "error". --RexxS (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. But what's your suggestion for correcting the "error"? I wish you luck over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think I'm suggesting correcting the error? There are about 2,710 of them - search for hastemplate:infobox insource:"name = Sir " insource:/name ?= ?Sir /, which incidentally shows that Logic (musician) claims to have "Sir" as part of his given name. If you wanted to clean that lot up, you could request a bot run. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Your unstoppable search for consistency of course. But I'll let you know about the bot run. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC) .... arise Sir Rag'n'Bone?? ....

Infobox

In reply to your Mike Westbrook question: I suppose because the reader doesn't know that it's Template:Infobox musical artist; we do, as editors, but readers don't. I agree that "musician" looks redundant, but it's recommended on the Template page and it might look odd if just "composer" appeared. Your version also has redundancy: "jazz pianist" is obvious, from the "Avant-garde jazz" and "Piano" entries in the infobox. On the other bit: it's obvious that Mike Westbrook would be associated with the Mike Westbrook Brass Band, so that shouldn't really be there. "Musician" appears at Bix Beiderbecke, Jimi Hendrix, George Harrison and other featured articles, but not all. So: stylistic preference perhaps. That's why I didn't revert, although in my periodic run-through of jazz pianist articles I might change it again, having forgotten this conversation; apologies if I do and if you still prefer the version you reverted to. EddieHugh (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Maybe the Brass Band is "obvious" to you and me, but it's still quite a different vehicle to his other work and as such seems informative. And I just see "jazz pianist" as being much more useful to the reader than "Musician", quite regardless of what is in the article or what's in the rest of the infobox. If there really are project-agreed "infobox norms" for Template:Infobox musical artist, I'd be happy to go with them. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Interlanguage links

Hi - You recently switched out the interlanguage links in the 'Enigma of Kaspar Hauser' article, in favor of direct links to de.wikipedia . I probably put those interlanguage links there. The good thing about the interlanguage links is that, if someone creates an English language article with the required title, the link automatically switches to an ordinary wikilink. The interlanguage link also makes it clear that you're leaving the English-speaking universe if you use it in its original state. I'll leave it to you if you'd like to revert your own edit, but there was a logic to the original scheme. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Yes, if someone creates, which seems to me very unlikely, but we should always be hopeful, I guess. And yes, it's more obvious, although I had assumed the colour difference with direct links would also be seen by those readers who are not using a monochrome display. I'll revert, although I'll retain the extra ones I added. But before I do, I wonder could you explain that one for Alfred Edel? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"ill" links are much better, because they kind of warn readers that they are about to leave English territory, + say what the next language(s) will be (which could be Japanese or Hebrew). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't write {{Interlanguage link multi|Alfred Edel (actor)|de|3=Alfred Edel|lt=Alfred Edel}}, but {{ill|Alfred Edel (actor)|de|Alfred Edel|lt=Alfred Edel}}. It means that English has an Alfred Edel, who is not this actor, so English has to disambiguate, but without showing the disambiguation. (I believe "lt" is short for linktext.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Having looked: that Alfred Edel is only a (bad) redirect, which could be overwritten by the actual Alfred Edel when writing his bio. I had the same for Catherine Foster, who was a redirect to Katherine Foster. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda - you do a great job explaining this. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks, Gerda. So when, if ever, are direct links preferable? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Never ;) - readers should see easily that they are supposed to work, meaning change red to blue. I reduce that pompous "multi" to simple "ill" when it's not multi, such as linking to de, it and fr (which you can do for one article, but I claim that once you are in one other language you can easily see what else is available). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, so why do we even have them? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

In former times, we had them to actually connect, but now we do it per Wikidata. Took me a while to find how to edit them now: look for "Wikidata item" left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

But they still do actually connect, in these present times? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

They do. I used such links a lot for German singers of Bach cantatas in my early days, until Graham told me better not. Imagine you are blind and end up in Hebrew ;) - I remember my first time of adding something in the Hebrew Wikipedia, and had (and needed) help from a friend born in Israel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

But just linking is not adding anything? I have always assumed that someone reading an article about a German person would be grateful for an embedded direct link to another German person or subject. But Graham is very welcome to expand here, is he wants to. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it's better to use interwwiki link templates in articles. Interwiki links using colons can be useful in discussions, however, for example to link to my Hebrew Wikipedia contributions; too much editing in the Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia makes me almost want to listen to One Direction. Graham87 15:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Oi vay! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent Dahmer additions.

Hi, Martin.

Just wanted your secondary opinion here. Do you agree with me this addition to the Dahmer article, despite the blustering justification it isn't trivia addition, should be reverted? Not only do some of the reference insertions reek of puerile impertinence (murdermostqueer, Blacktino etc.), but even the author's text description for some radiates trivia and incidental depictions (dark comedy etc.). I was itching to revert, but, in this instance, thought I'd get a second opinion first. It's a stepping stone to that South Park depiction being added with "justification" in my Mancunian opinion. Thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kieron. I'm not sure. I'll try and take a closer look. I must get round to adding that South Park episode one of these days. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I've now removed two of those as they seem to have no suitable sources. The third I've tagged, as it needs a better source. But the fact the remaining two items both have Wikipedia articles suggests they are notable entries. I do not have visibility of the first source, but have accepted in good faith. Hope this helps. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Martinevans123. I agree with your observation, and did think the "dark comedy" called "Betty's Summer Vacation" certainly were irrelevant. If insertions like that were allowed to remain, incidental mentions in episodes of crime dramas would soon seep in. Always reassuring to know you can assist a needy serial/cereal killer from time to time.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Unusual deaths

Hi there! Bless for reverting away the python death since that source didn't make any comment as to whether it was unusual or not. :) I did some digging and pulled up another couple of sources and have posted on the unusual deaths talkpage about them, and I'd love your input - the short version is that neither says explicitly unusual, but do refer to it as a one-in-a-million event, and I'm wondering if consensus is that's close enough. Cheers! NekoKatsun (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi NeoKatsin. Thanks for the message. I've made a comment over at the Talk page. But I get a bit nervous when people mention Pythons. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

MES

We need to get the word Manchester into the lead! Ceoil (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Haha yes, we probably do. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bishop!

Haha Martin thanks! ... which then triggered me to go off and have to re-look-up the Church Police sketch (which seems to be a little better developed and funnier on the LP Matching Tie and Handkerchief than on the TV --> YouTube one I saw??) ... and so on. Cheers (not really here) 82.34.71.202 (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Not really here? Ah yes, the value of a good disguise. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Quite. :) 82.34.71.202 (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Belated Christmas greeting

	Slings and arrows will not harm you
	He's makin' a list And checking it twice Gonna find out if your naughty or nice Santa says no pings Are allowed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

ooh yes, the sling backs and arrows of outrageous fortune, dearie! If I were you, I'd resign. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean, belated? I have two Christmas songs on the Main page ;) (the second one has an image that Hillbilly on holiday) would also like. - Mary's cleansing (40 days after giving birth) will be tomorrow. Please watch the TFA then (was supposed to appear last year, but I was too slow). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

In peace and joy I depart, - I wonder if that some day will fit me. I wonder about Krzysztof. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Ann Widdecombe

Do you think the media section is becoming overloaded with trivia? It reads more like a blog than a BLP. Best wishes for your attempts to keep this article neutral and free from spiteful vandalism, Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC).

Well, it's hard to tell what's trivia and what isn't, but yes it is getting a bit big, I think. I think we're not quite ready yet for a separate article on Media work, appearances and stage acting career of Ann Widdecombe, so maybe it could be trimmed down a bit. Maybe you'd you like to open a discussion thread at Talk:Ann Widdecombe? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Remove it all and replace with a link to serious commentary by Victoria Wood.

Hahaha. Not seen that before. Very good. "W.I. and Double D"!!

"The Media section is too big!"... "Oh, no it isn't!" Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio links (...."we got 'em"!)

I have warned you in the past about linking to copyright violating sites, so it seems rather coincidental that you would knowingly add such a link to a discussion about a copyvio action I took. I removed it, please don't ever do this again. Fram (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you're implying about any "coincidental" addition on my part. Would you explain that please? My addition was made in perfectly good faith. Or perhaps you've already provided User:7&6=thirteen with a copy? That copyvio has been there for over two years? Did you do the automatic Google translate to check? How would I "knowingly add" something if I have no original to compare it with? Now only you and other Admins have access to that? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, you didn't just remove what might have been an offending link in my post. You removed my entire post. Then you rushed here to scold me. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I obviously didn't rush fast enough, as you readded it and didn't see fit to remove it despite my post here. Don't add this kind of thing again or you will be blocked. ues your time instead to remove all youtube copyvio links from your userpage once again, as many of the links seem of very dubious copyright status again. Fram (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

And now you've deleted my entire post again. So I assume you did a check and the copyvio has been there for 2 years? I'm not sure how I was supposed to know that, unless I had kept my own personal copy of the deleted article or had an eidetic memory. And now more threats. You seem to be assuming totally bad faith on my part. That's really unpleasant. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The copyvio was there from the start of the article, otherwise only part of the history would have been deleted. You readded it after it was removed, and didn't bother to remove it after reading my posts here either. On the other hand, you have been readding youtube copyvio links to your user page despite being warned about this by me in the past, when you gave the impression to comply with this for a short while. Fram (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

You added your message here while I was restoring my comment at WP:AN/I, believing, in good faith, that your deletion was a mistake. And what's a "short while" exactly? If you think my linking to YouTube videos on my own user page is so serious, then I guess you will just have to block me. You've convinced me that my contributions here are not wanted. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

If you don't want to edit here if you are not allowed to put links to copyright violating youtube videos on your user page, then that is your choice. If you readd them, I will indeed block you, but I would much prefer if you left them of your user page and simply continued editing. Fram (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, despite the "Copyvio links" heading here, this thread is not about a few links to Youtube videos which may or may not be "copyvio" (although they have obviously been watched, over decades, by million of viewers, across the world, without any apparent legal consequences), it's about my post here which was my good faith attempt to contribute to that ongoing discussion, where I was trying to make a point about notability, whuch had been raised by User:GoldenRing here. It apparently contained a copyvio link (in another language). So my post was deleted wholesale. I was also accused of deliberately re-adding it despite a warning here (which I had not had time to see). I don't really appreciate threats of blocking and then having material dumped off my User page without a request to remove it myself (which I would gladly have done). I've just had enough of this overbearing battleground mentality, thanks. So I've carefully trimmed down this page, in case there are any copyvios lurking, and trimmed the YouTube links yet again, just for Fram, who seems to see my contributions at WP:AN/I and my willful and malicious posting of links to YouTube video, as all part of the same unbearably disruptive activity. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Pretty sure linking to a copyvio doesn't count. Eman235/talk 20:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Well, linking to the defense from one side in a dispute which is at court now is not really evidence, and in any case, the question is not whether it is legal or not. The question is whether it is allowed on enwiki, and the answer to that question is "no". Fram (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed; we have stricter copyright rules than most places, and WP:COPYVIOCITE is quite clear on not linking to copyright-breaking material. Primefac (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying, @Fram: and @Primefac:. Just to be totally clear (as that linked page does not mention translations), this applies to all translations into foreign languages, such as the one I linked in Esperanto, even though an editor may have no knowledge of that language to be able to determine if it is a close translation of not? Won't it depend on how good the automatic translation is? Your advice would be much appreciated. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're asking. Primefac (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac. That's the best answer I've yet had. But yes, one sentence was a little ambitious there, wasn't it, I'm sorry. I was trying to ask this:

1. Can a translation of a passage into a foreign language always be assumed to be a copy-vio? I mean, other languages use totally different words don't they, and express things in a different way, with different grammar?

2. If one doesn't know a language (like I don't know Esperanto, for example) how does one judge if it's copyvio? Is a machine translation (like GoogleTranslate) good enough to determine this?

3. (another question I've just thought of, as you're here) Can links to what may be copyvio material never be used at Wikipedia, off article main space, for the purposes of discussion or illustration?

Thanks for your time. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I probably shouldn't rush in where angles fear to tread. But to answer those questions briefly: 1. no, only an unauthorised translation of a copyright work is a copyvio; an authorised translation acquires a second copyright, that of the translator. 2. you can't, and no (but it can give you an idea). 3. no; if you have to give the link (to report a copyvio, say), drop the http:// (e.g., www.linkvio.us). Now I'll eff off. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much Justlettersandnumbers. That's very useful. If only Fram could have just given me some friendly advice like that. Not seen him for a while. We'll have to wait and see if Primefac agrees with you, I guess. We wouldn't want to steal his thunder, would we? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC) ... loving the eggs

Although, if ever I have a copyright question I always tend go to User:Diannaa, who seems to be a complete expert in this area, and who is always straightforward, polite and helpful. I wonder if she would see fit help me out in my "hour of need." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC) [10]

Oh no, now I'm worried that I've leap-frogged on poor old Primefac. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

So, JLAN, one can just remove "http://"? That seems somehow very easy. Is that actually website policy? Surely one is encouraging the reader to reconstruct the link and to click through just the same? Or is this some kind of "due diligence"? Perhaps Primefac could actually advise us. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• • The article I linked also mentions a case where this was actually the court's decision -- but if policy says it's not okay, then I won't argue further. Eman235/talk 21:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, I saw that, Eman235. I found that article very interesting. I guess that's what's going on in the real world. At least in the US. Many thanks for posting it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

oh dearie me, seems someone's been at the sauce judging by all these empty tin-pots... Poor vous. .micro.dot.cotton (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, then, to both of you. That (and the page history) sure looked like ongoing (and unfriendly) harassment. I stand corrected. General Ization ^Talk 21:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Ella and Louis are always more than welcome at my Talk page, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC) ... as are any other sundry icons of popular music, of course.

I need the angel

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.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

O Heavens, O forgot the attribution. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

moar impact

Impact

Thank you for your impact
in aspiring to amuse, facing recent deaths with serenity

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I restore this, - too lazy to write the diff in the prize record. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Eat ur heart out, Ron and Sonia

I hope that you watch my talk and know already that we had a lovely Main page today, on which Nazi was mentioned which should guarantee a few extra clicks, - sad, really. Tomorrow will be Der gelbe Klang, sounds rich. There's a video, but nononono link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

As you know Gerda, as a subtle tribute to Donald Trump's wig, I try and steer clear of the ever-diminishing Main page. But I think you are very brave with the Übermensch-Untermensch theme. 23:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC) shame about the nonononono bangin' tuuuuuuuuuune!!!

My theme was Ihr habt nun Traurigkeit (You now have sadness), but the reviewer brought in the four-letter word. I sang "Ich will euch trösten" (I want to console you) on the stage of the Mainz opera house, because our choir was asked to add flavour to the opera chorus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Gerda, you are always so thoughtful and sweet. I do appreciate your musical lightness. One of the better four letter words, there. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC) [11]

I should put that in my "blushing" cabinet. 18 February, - did you know that it's the day I gave Precious to the one who gave me the good advice "ignore ignore ignore", 6 years ago? And the birthday of another friend who died too young? Phoenix Arising was written by his son as a tribute to him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to admit that I did not notice, Gerda!! That's very interesting about Phoenix Arising. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, - I just started the next, on piano pieces. The composer was my first DYK, I had filled a red link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

We start today. I just was reminded of that, mind the date. I was too proud to appeal for two years, and may have been wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

2018 Six Nations Championship

Somewhat gutted by that. Often the TMO has to make a tough decision based on no direct view.... but when it's in perfectly clear view watched by millions?? Mr Glenn Newman not terribly popular in Wales at the moment, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Wild Side image

Hello! Since you've done good work on the Walk on the Wild Side (Lou Reed song) article, I'd be interested in your opinion about my proposed image addition at the end of the talk page there. Best wishes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I'll try and take a look. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

February 14th

(1860-1880) Museum of London	Happy Valentine's Day!
	It wasn't easy to come up with an innocuous Valentine's Day greeting to share with collaborators on Wikipedia, so I went with "evolutionary". Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There’s too much fraternizing with the enemy. ~Henry Kissinger Atsme📞📧 13:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Oooh, thank you so much Atsme. What an unexpected delight! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

John Savage, KG tbr

Hi Martin

Thank you so much for your help getting the Booth's Gin article better informed, and so swiftly! May I ask for your assistance in renaming (or at least how to rename) the article currently entitled John Savage, KG? As should be obvious this is a misnoma, because anyone who has been knighted can be styled Sir, and in his instance he has been known as Sir John Savage, KG for time immemorial (especially since the post-noms KG differentiate him uniquely from others by the name of Sir John Savage, who weren't KGs).

Much obliged for your guidance & thanking you in advance for your assistance as it is good to have Wikipedia reflecting correct info.

217.169.51.41 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi 217. Just tidying up a bit over there. Still looking a bit stubby. As for Sir John, yes that does look like a misnomer. Looking through all the others at Category:Knights of the Garter (and there are quite a few) I don't see any with that title format. It seems we already have a few others listed at the DAB page for John Savage, so we'll need to agree on a good distinctive name. Any thoughts? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Martin, and would John Savage (1444–1492) fit the bill? Again thanks for tidying the Booth's Gin article; you're clearly vastly more experienced in such matters, so perhaps let others have a say & then revisit with more info (when we've thought of some!) in a few days' time? Cheers! 217.169.51.41 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

As you will see at John Savage, dates are not usually used for the titles of articles on people. The best place to look for advice is WP:TITLE, or more especially Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Noted, so what's wrong with Sir John Savage, KG since that is how he is known to most people (who've ever heard of him ofc!)? Will advise if can think of anything more appropriate. Thanks again. 217.169.51.41 (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

PS. and since the post-noms "KG" don't fit the style, then surely just "Sir John Savage" would do... Any other Sir John Savages (none so far) who make the grade to have their own Wiki entry could then be distinguished by years? He was, after all, by far the most famous Sir John Savage ever to have lived. Anyway, thanks your consideration of this matter (because John Savage, KG apart from being wrong looks clumsy too). Best, 217.169.51.41 (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There is some advice for titles at Wikipedia:TITLESINTITLES. But, looking again at the Category, I see that a few do use just year of death e.g. Thomas Felton (died 1381) and Anthony Browne (died 1548). So I'd initially suggest John Savage (died 1492). I see that the article has been edited quite recently, including by User:Rodw, who I know is a very experienced and friendly editor. Although the name move will probably not be contentious, it's always a good idea to open a thread to discuss it first at the Talk page. Any editors who have that page on their watchlist will be able to see that a change is being proposed. So I'll open one there, where discussion can continue. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That is a very good suggestion - thank you. 217.169.51.41 (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I've started a thread at Talk:John Savage, KG. See you over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

My word, 217, something tells me you're not a newcomer, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem quite clued up - I hope my edits to trance music just now add value to Wiki's article. I hadn't realized that Rod hasn't much interest in the articles he edits, but anyway hope my small input is well received! Thanks again. 217.169.51.41 (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Generally, he does have a lot of interest, I think. It's easy to get thrown by a bit of random trance, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Mesmerised, no doubt?!
PS. anyway, you are right - easy to get blown off course. Thanks for your help so far. 21:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That last was just an excuse to lead me to Jules. If you see Fram, tell him I had a word with Jules and he said it was totally official. Just go ahead and do your thing. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think the Martin Garrix link you posted is an official one? I can find no evidence that "Fu music" has the rights to this recordings, but perhaps I miss something. I presume you have checked this and can easily show me that this is not a copyvio link? Fram (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, Fram. What a coincidence that you should just appear like that. Yes, a good point, well spotted. I hadn’t noticed that. "Fu music" may not be an official channel it seems. So I’ve removed it. It’s not a performance by Martin Garrix of course, but by the Istanbul University State Conservatory. I can’t find that video on their website. I was probably distracted by the fact it’s been there for two years and has had 2,135,202 views. But as you’re here, perhaps you could now explain what you meant about "coincidental" addition on my part, with regard to the automatic Esperanto translation?

As you seem to be keen on avoiding copyvio, I’d still be very pleased to get your advice on these questions from the thread you opened on "Copyvio links" above. As you may have seen, I already asked User:Primefac above for his view, as well as on his Talk page, but he has so far neglected to answer:

• 1. Can a translation of a passage into a foreign language always be assumed to be a copy-vio? I mean, other languages use totally different words don't they, and express things in a different way, with different grammar?
• 2. If one doesn't know a language (like I don't know Esperanto, for example) how does one judge if it's copyvio? Is a machine translation (like GoogleTranslate) good enough to determine this?
• 3. Can links to what may be copyvio material never be used at Wikipedia, off article main space, for the purposes of discussion or illustration.

Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

As you obviously can't be bothered to stop adding links to copyright violations, despite multiple and recent warnings, you have been blocked. Fram (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh? I've just removed the link that you seem to think was such a huge breach of policy? My linking was a mistake, which I fully admitted. I've done what you asked to me to and removed it immediately. And the result is you've now blocked me??? That just seems crazy. Vindictive almost. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I repeatedly asked you not to add links to youtube if you were not sure that they were by the copyright holders (e.g. links from the official BBC channel). Yet this is what you did yet again. While mistakes are acceptable, mistakes which happen again and again and where you have been explicitly warned not to make them again are not. I wanted to make sure that you really did add another link to a problematic youtube channel, and not to some official channel where I missed the indication that it was some rights holder for the performers or composers: but as you made clear that there was no such justification, there is no longer an excuse to let you continue editing like this. An editor where every edit (or every talk page edit at least) needs to be checked for copyvio links is not someone who should be allowed to continue editing. Fram (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you are exaggerating both the size of the problem and my response to your advice. You previously seemed to be assuming I was editing in wholly bad faith. And you've also not answered my questions. So, for how long have you blocked me? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I note that you made the same kind of "mistake" at User talk:Ceoil yesterday, linking to copyrighted youtube videos there as well. Your "response" to advice seems to be "I'll remove them when you find them, but otherwise I won't change a thing", which is the reason you are now blocked. Indefinitely, which is until there is a clear indication that you'll stop adding such links anywhere on enwiki. Fram (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realise you were following me around watching for incriminating evidence in the form of links to copyrighted Youtube videos. It's not always clear what's copyright and what isn't. I'm not the only editor who is unclear. You seem to wanting to a make an example of me. I'm really not sure how I can make such a "clear indication" that you will accept. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"It's not always clear what's copyright and what isn't. " If you don't have a good reason to believe that something is not copyrighted, then you should not link to it (or otherwise use it). That should have been very clear by now. Your position seems to be "if I don't know if it is a copyvio link, I'll link to it anyway and hope no one notices it". That's not a case of wanting to make an example of you, that's a case of an editor where I am aware of problematic behaviour who continues with the same behaviour after multiple warnings over a prolonged period. Fram (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I see. I'll find it difficult to remove any offending links, which I may have inadvertently left, on other user's Talk pages, or to pass on your policy message, while I'm indefinitely blocked. But perhaps you have compiled a long list of such violations, that you're prepared to work through yourself? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

At least now you're unable to add any further such links, which is what the block is trying to prevent. If I had blocked you while you were indeed actively removing such old links on your own, then it would indeed be a crazy block. But all you remove are the ones I find after a cursory search and post here, and afterwards you simply add other similar problematic links ("inadvertently" of course, as a "mistake", but a mistake that happens again and again and again). Fram (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm unable to edit the encyclopedia at all. You must see the potential risk of "contributory copyright infringement" that I will expose the project to as far outweighing the benefit of improvements I might make. What percentage of my edits have breached policy in this regard so far? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware that we have some policy which says that you are allowed to make problematic edits as long as you make enough productive ones. Perhaps you can make such a proposal if and when you get unblocked. Unless you show any indication that you realise the problem with these edits and are willing to change your approach, I'm done here. Fram (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the "problem" with these edits. My difficulty seems to be in identifying what's a breach of copyright and what isn't. I think your indefinite block is overly harsh and punitive. That's just my personal view. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Fram, I don't offer any opinion on the block myself, but I think you should put it on ANI for community review, since Martinevans123 is an experienced and constructive contributor. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC).
  • They can put up an unblock request, and/or they can give some indication that they take any actual note of the problem and won't repeat the issues. Being experienced and constructive is not a "get-out-of-jail" card. Their whole attitude in this sorry episode is the opposite of constructive anyway. Fram (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Martinevans123, can you just agree not to link to any Youtube videos unless they have an appropriate license in the "Show More" section? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Hi Neil. That sounds easy. But I'm not too sure what "an appropriate license" means. The one here says "Standard YouTube Licence", so does that mean this is ok to post? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Technically, yes. In your case, no. I'll explain. "Standard YouTube License" can be used by any uploader, for any video, including copyright violations. However in this case the uploader is BBC News, the copyright holder, verified by checking if the channel is mentioned on their website (and the "verified" checkmark beside their name). If you aren't willing to do these checks then you have to look for videos with these or other free-to-use licenses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm quite willing to make checks. It seems a very good idea. But I'm still a bit confused here.... It's not just a case of looking for "an appropriate license", but also one of finding a website and the "verified" checkmark in the "SHOW MORE" section? (I can see an example of the "Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed)" licence in the video here). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
          • You need to do some due diligence and use common sense here. For example, if a YouTube user called "BBCFootball4Evah" put up a football match broadcasted by the BBC and used the Standard License (or any other license), would you think they were the copyright holder and had the right to put up that video? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
            • I think I'd have my doubts. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• It would have been better to take this to AN/I first for consensus. Fram, please unblock, then if you want you can open an AN discussion about editors posting links on user talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I was just about to "send public thanks", SarahSV. But of course people "in jail" aren't allowed to thank anyone that way, are they. So I'll just publicly thank you here instead. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Two days in a row I am shocked. I am probably not in a position to say please unblock. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• No, Gerda, yesterday's was User:Ceoil not me. And a different Admin, of course. I'd post you a video clip to say thanks, but I suspect that would be viewed as the "opposite of constructive". Thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Virtual thanks for virtual music. I was in a desert today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• How amazing, Gerda. That looks incredible. I'm very jealous! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe it's my lack of understanding on the whole copyvio thing but I honestly see no issue with what Martin does ..... Anyway I would recommend unblocking and starting a community discussion over at ANI (or unblocking and then starting an RFC on this whole YouTube linking thing). Either way blocking indef was not appropriate IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 19:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010, while there's certainly an argument that blocking was an overreaction, policy as currently written is absolutely clear that Fram acted correctly. (WP:ELNEVER, WP:LINKVIO and WP:CV#Addressing contributors, if you need chapter and verse.) Since WP:ELNEVER in particular is explicitly to be applied by admins without exception, if any admin other than Fram were unilaterally to overturn this particular block it would be a suicide mission since arbcom would have no alternative but to desysop that admin. (All it needs is an "I won't do it again" from Martin and it will be liftable.) ‑ Iridescent 19:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for cheering things up for us all, Iri. I'm still busy learning about YouTube licences from Neil. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec) And in this case it boils down to the fact that Martin has been warned in the past about posting copious links to probably copyvio YouTube videos to no tangible benefit to the encyclopedia. In this situation, the only thing I could recommend Martin do is to apologise, recognise that posting any links to external videos is now verboten as he admits to not understanding how to determine whether or not they infringe copyright, and request an unblock. Until then, I see this as being one permanent goodbye. Which, despite all of our run-ins, even yesterday, would be a shame as when Martin works on content, it's beneficial to all of us. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ramblo. Your comments seem very fair. Thing is though, although you say "he admits to not understanding", I'd rather learn. And to see clear guidelines for all on a policy page. Or perhaps you'd prefer "one permanent goodbye?" I could take a vote on that one. A "run in"?? I thought that was just playtime for you? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC) I noticed you bilingualistic skills, there.

I'm cool with most things. You've hit upon an interesting topic, but I think you need to realise that linking to videos etc on talkpages is a waste of time, and a little like using Wikipedia as Facebook. If you're adding videos to articles then that'd be ok as long as they comply with the usual media requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Buy there we have it... Not just a waste of time unfortunately. They say it is a capital offence. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I know all this piping is your natural defence, but you'd do better to just accept the issue and do what I suggested. That way you're back in the game. If not, you'll be forced to create another sock. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Not another one, surely? I've lost count. But ah yes, I love cricket. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC) ...but whatever you say sugar daddy....

I'll leave you to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Eek. I just saw the struck and italicised username and thought 'what the hell', and was to comment that this was a bad block, but fair enough. @Iridescent: so no room for a ANI discussion to discuss the block and let another admin overturn? Of course there needs to be assurances that this linking will not happen again. !dave 19:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page crowded cell, !Dave. I've always secretly suspected that your name was Dave. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The mystery can only be revealed if you are an OTRS agent... !dave 20:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, I might have guessed there'd be some kind of subterfuge involved. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

My name is not dave, the formula is indefinite, pending satisfactory assurances that infringement will not continue - e.g. unless and until either it's proven that the block was in error, or Martin agrees to stop posting copyvios, an ANI discussion won't make any difference. WP:CV is a legal policy so any change to it would need to go via the WMF; a discussion at ANI (or anywhere) won't have authority to amend it. ‑ Iridescent 20:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent, that's an extreme interpretation of policy. Similarly, we could block editors who add too many block quotes to articles, in case they've inadvertently quoted the most important part of a book or too much of it. Anyway, Martin, the best thing is to agree not to do it again. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, that's not an "interpretation", that's a verbatim quote from the policy. ‑ Iridescent 20:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as Fram is concerned, it's not just million-view YouTube videos, it's a "bigger picture" involving, for example, automatic Esperanto translations. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I do block editors who add too many block quotes. They get one warning and then they're indefinitely blocked if the behavior continues. They're asked to explain in their own words why they were blocked and how they will avoid violating policy in the future. Their responses often reveal they're not proficient enough in English to write content using their own words and a limited time block would do nothing to solve this. Martin - question for you. Why are you treating video different from text? If you came across an unpaywalled copy of the NY Times on www.free4all.com I assume you wouldn't link to it or use it as a reference? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm very glad that you can see there's a difference in my behaviour. I probably wouldn't be adding NY Times text of any kind in a casual jokey manner on a fellow editor's Talk page. And I wouldn't typically be linking YouTube videos in article main space either. I think I'd be more likely to be deleting them as being WP:PRIMARY. I've deleted a few on that basis. I must admit I have assumed in the past that User Talk pages were somehow less important as far as copyright violation was concerned. That seems to be a view shared by very many editors. But User:Diannaa tells me that's not the case, which still seems odd to me. I'd still like to know what a "verified checkmark" looks like in a YouTube "SHOW MORE" section. I mostly just see websites, such as the ones shown here. I've assumed that's "official" because it links to the orchestra website. Can you tell me if that is a correct assumption? I'm now guessing that anyone can add a website to a video. I'd like to be able to tell easily what is legitimate and what is not, as it seems my assessments have occasionally been a bit hasty. Thanks for engaging in discussion here, which I'm hoping will be useful for other editors who might find themselves in the same position. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The verified checkmark is beside the account name (example), not in the "Show more" section. And in your orchestra example, you've got the scenario backwards. You need to check if the website links to the YouTube account. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Many thanks, That is pretty clear. Those two checks prescribe all legitimate YouTube videos for use at Wikipedia ? Is that written down as a policy anywhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The policy is "don't link to copyright violations". I'm telling you how to figure out what is a copyright violation. If some anonymous person dumped the entire text of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone somewhere on the web, I don't think you need specific policy instructions telling you that that's a copyright violation and therefore not to link to it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That also seems pretty clear. I think most people would spot that onYT music video that's been watched millions of times? Or even a small machine translation in Esperanto of a recently deleted Wikipedia article? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the play count is - some companies are lax about enforcing their copyrights. It should take no more than a couple minutes to figure out the copyright status. If you are unsure, email someone with the link. The machine translation example is more complicated but bottom line again, email someone. I'm trying to get you unblocked but right now, the onus is on you to state how you're going to change your linking practices. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful advice. Yes, I'm sure it would change my linking practices. Please don't feel you have to rush. I'm looking at all the vandalism on my watch list and realising that I no longer feel obliged to issue a level 1 warning, and then issue a level 2 warning and then you know, eventually raise a post at WP:AIV. All that stuff. It can be quite a chore, can't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There might be some confusion here. We (or at least I) are waiting for you to post an unblock request that includes how you're going to change your linking practices. I see that Fram didn't post unblock request instructions. Here: Please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=''Your reason here''}} --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, when you block editors for block quotes, they're probably extreme cases: pasting large amounts of text with quotation marks. This is someone posting links on user talk. But Martin, really, the easiest thing now is for you to agree that you won't do it again. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I certainly won't deliberately do it again. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Guess best thing since YouTube is not a reliable reference anyway I think (what do I know as I am just a MONGO) so maybe just pledge to never link to that dreaded site again since it's naughty stuff.--MONGO 21:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note, MONGO. I'm sorry I can't do that, as it would be contrary to policy (as I understand it) and because I genuinely believe that YouTube videos can provide a resource that can enhance understanding of a subject, particularly a musical one. I'm also still considering taking Ramblo's "one permanent goodbye" option in protest over the harshness of Fram's indefinite block. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• There still seems to be some discussion over whether it's fair, or if anyone else can fairly overturn it, or whether there should have been an AN/I case, or if there should a still be an AN/I case. I'm sure Fram thinks he's "just doing his job." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• It's not really an "option", it's an inevitability. What you'll find (and I know this) is that after one or two days of being blocked, you're quickly forgotten. Three or four days and it's "hmm, who?". So if you really want to get back into the game, I'd follow my advice. If you don't, oh well, it happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You said above you were going to "leave me to it". You're now saying my goodbye is "an inevitability"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess so. I thought, for a moment, you were going to do the sensible thing, but I can see from all the joking around that you still really don't get it. Bye Martin, I'd like to say it's been fun, but it hasn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I fear you have shown your true colours. Thanks for all the support there. When did my deadline expire exactly? Perhaps you can tell me if Fram is actually "done" here or not. Which bit of "joking around" didn't you like? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Martin, forgive me for jumping in here, you're far more eminent than me, and I hope you don't think in the slightest I'm being patronizing here, but the sentences "I think you should put it on ANI for community review" & "They can put up an unblock request, and/or they can give some indication that they take any actual note of the problem and won't repeat the issues." I'd hate to see Wiki. lose you. All the best--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

+1 GMG^talk 02:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

There is the Michael Jackson - Thriller (Official Video) on michaeljacksonVEVO which is OK as it is official. There is also the Michael Jackson's "Thriller" Tribute in LEGO which has seven million views and is great fun to watch, but it is an unofficial fan tribute and is probably a copyright violation somewhere along the way. WP:YOUTUBE makes clear that there are many videos like this. If Martin agreed not to post any links to YouTube videos at all, it wouldn't be a great loss. They are rarely suitable as citations anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Only a loss to the lawyers, I guess. And anyway, I thought Michael loved Lego. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Martin, I realize that you don't seem to be in any hurry to be unblocked (you do want unblocked, right?) but all that is really required is that you file an unblock request and give assurances that you won't be posting any video links until you have a proper understanding of what you can post. You don't have to have that understanding at the present to do this. If you feel that the policies and guidelines aren't clear then you can post for clarification on the respective talk pages to start a discussion. It isn't all that hard. :) It would be easier on those folks who are trying to help you if you would just file the damn request promise to refrain from posting any videos.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Berean Hunter. Thanks for the helpful advice and thanks for the slow poke. Fram neglected to post a template. He must think I'm a regular. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and post that template here.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've seen those unblock requests and I know what they look like. Martin, don't do it again please. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Doc Mice. I'm glad you saw them. Thanks for your liberating intervention. And thanks for your polite and wholly reasonable request. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Martin, I hope you don't mind, but yes, your work is valued and yes, so's your wit and friendliness. NeilN actually gave you the formula up above, but I think it's got lost, so here it is again: this is what you copy and fill in. {{unblock|reason=''Your reason here''}} Hope to see you elsewhere on-wiki soon. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  He was unblocked about 20 hours ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh good! Pardon my perpetual slowness. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yngvadottir. I certainly don't mind. Thank you so much for such kind words. Yes, I saw the formula and it was good of NeilN to give it. Pardon my sloth. Hope to be back soon. Even after many more than a few hours. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Martin, I am delighted to see you back here. With best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think linking to YouTube videos is to copyright infringement what talking about narcotics is to trafficking heroin. Plus a block here does nothing to address the actual problem on YouTube any more than sticking somebody in the slammer for a bag of grass helps curb the activities of Columbian drug barons. Welcome back, Martin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

come back Martin

Hi dude, you're unblocked, hope to see you soon. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. There are few people I can argue with over Nike Drake with such mischievousness and passion. Ceoil (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

He's observing. Believe me. All the best regardless though, Martin. You largely maintained my drive in the area of skill you noted I have, and you helped hone, and which I continue to focus on.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, when he is finished his "observing", he might get back to article work, given Drmies fair and reasoned unblock. The Rambling Man paints a bleak picture of where martyrdom will get you, I concur having kown more than a few that contributed migthely, gave up in disgust without drama or exit speaches, and after a week or so....whoosh, as far the admin core could give a damn. The internet is a cold and lonely universe. Ceoil (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil Regardless of what I stated, I agree with your sentiment. "Gafas" (certainly latterly) aside we're a community. Keep up your good work too. Limey.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries Kieron. Yes we are a community. Ceoil (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil. It's okay mate. I hope I am wrong although I suspect a guild of some form ("MUST KEEP EDITING"? ALWAYS indifferent given personal nurturing and support). Regardless, Martin has been nurturing, supportive, and humorous to so many of us. Stay focused yourself.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Tell him to get is ass back in here. He is a significant net positive. End of story. Ceoil (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, get the guy to "haul ass" to the Pennines, Ceoil and I'll do so on a personal basis. Regardless of cheap geographical humour... I don't know the guy beyond here on Wiki. Chill with a tune. Back to focus, I hope I do hear from him. Stay chilled yourself and I'll keep you informed. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

despised and rejected

the desert is a good place for introspection

Miriam Makeba

(4 March 1932 – 9 November 2008)

• Martin, take your time over feeling rejected, with an image for a time of Lent which I chose yesterday (Handel's birthday) to illustrate He was despised. Composed in 1741, with all those speaking rests: "He was -- despised, - despised and - rejected, - – rejected of men, ... – despi-sed – rejected"". From the cable of the outcasts, most of whom felt the same at some time more recently than that. I made the redirect in March 2012. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• …and also from Handel's Messiah the chorus "Oh we like sheep, all gone astray, that we will turn, each to our own way". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Blue Monday and Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme are worth listening to whilst waiting, which hopefully shouldn't be too long. L'honorable (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, not such a harsh desert, really. I shall listen to those. It's seems to be the honourable thing to do. "Jakarta??" --- "No she she went on 'er own, on a jumbo." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Martin, I also really hope to see you back editing on Wikipedia someday – I miss your sense of humour, and crossing paths with you on music articles from the pre-internet era that desperately need improving. And Ceoil, if you need someone to argue with over Nick Drake in Martin's absence, I'm always available... Richard3120 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Martin, I've been away for three weeks and just now saw this kerfuffle. I hope you are doing well and that when you see fit we'll see your bright shining face again. Much love, Softlavender (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Seconded (Softlavender's second and third sentence). Lookin' forward to more ussinfay, and shafafa on the side. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• (I'm already desperately checking the back of my sauce cupboard for past-their-sell-by 8-year old Finnish copyvios). But yes Sluzzelin, what a king he will forever be. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC) (... what a beautifully neat and glittering solo that is).

• Missed out on what happened, but my thoughts are the same. Your contributions are greatly admired and I also hope you are doing well too. Alex Shih (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Alex, I'm so glad you missed that. Thanks so much, that really means a lot. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Martin, do you want to correct the spelling of your name on ANI? - Missing: I miss people. Alex: did you see my name here? He also took the warning sign (to his user page) that says (in German) "He who speaks a word of consolation is a traitor" (which I had on my user page until 2015.) - More my talk, look for F minor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Sinfonia in G minor

More mellow after the black despair pictured above, here's a subtle hint at a composer from Wales (click on Waterhouse), and the first church I knew pictured. F minor is gone, G minor now. Will hear the cantata now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the composer's article! - It was outstanding, depth and heights. The "erlösen" (redeem, but the German word has to do with loosening) was perfectly light and loose! The soloist (whose article just survived AfD) also sang as part of the youth choir, and looked like enjoying it! - Did you see the AfD for the woman from Wales pictured on the Main page, which may come up again, - closed because she was on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid the front^* at all costs. That looks like a very well-written and well-researched article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC) ^* "All Fur Coat and No knickers"?

Kudos

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Hope we see you again, Martin, but if not (and hopefully this won't unfold as being the case), I wanted to add this to your page. I could have added an Original, Random Acts of Kindness, or Editor's Barnstar, but thought this one to be the best. Please don't rest on superlative laurels.Kieronoldham (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much Kieron. Yes, hopefully. As if I would. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Happy St. David's Day

The leek is one of the national emblems of Wales, worn along with the daffodil (in Welsh, the daffodil is known as "Peter's leek", Cenhinen Bedr) on St. David's Day. According to one legend, King Cadwaladr of Gwynedd ordered his soldiers to identify themselves by wearing the vegetable on their helmets in an ancient battle against the Saxons that took place in a leek field. Cheers!‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 15:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

References

And to you, Gareth! What an interesting source. I guess that must have been Allium-loving Cadwallon ap Cadfan? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Great to hear back from you! Great link, thanks. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 15:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Guy. Tend to agree with L.R. Wormwood. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Alt text

Hi Martin. Saw your simplification on Blaenffos and wondered if you knew whether alt text can be added to the caption in the infobox? Cheers, Tony Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Is OK; I found this: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Alternative_text_for_images#Captions_and_nearby_text. Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, that looks a useful option. Many thanks Tony. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

But not sure it can be used at Template:infobox UK place? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

When an old-fashioned infobox doesn't have it, you can do 2 things: demand it added (also a image_upright parameter), or code it all in the image field, example all churches that I touch, such as St. Martin (has no alt, but I guess you can imagine). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Gerda. How would I demand that? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You go to the template talk and say that {{infobox person}} has these features, and template xyz should also have them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see what you mean. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:infobox UK place has the option to add alt text, but the syntax is slightly different: use |static_image_alt=your alt text. Works just like the standard alt text for photos etc, but also displays the text when the cursor hovers over the image. I've added some alt text to the infobox at Blaenffos. Feel free to edit/improve. Robevans123 (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Arnold Bax

If you actually dare search for it, I'm assuming that the YouTube upload of "Arnold Bax - November Woods (1917)" (20:36) published by Yusuf Yalçın on 25 Dec 2012 is probably quite likely to be a possible copyvio since it does not link to the BBC Philharmonic website and does not give a clear indication that the orchestra has given it's permission for that recording to be published? (Or is the estate of Arnold Bax, and/or his original publisher, involved in some way? I'm sorry if that question appears hopelessly naive). I expect there is a whole set of advice on music copyright rules somewhere at Wikipedia, isn't there Any advice welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Almost certainly a copyvio. To start off, Arnold Bax's work is still in copyright - he died in 1953 so his work is in copyright until 2023 (70 years from date of death), in the UK. The copyright is probably held by his estate (but if he had sold the rights of some or all of his work to others then the date of his work coming out of copyright would be unaffected - you'd just have to pay someone else to record or perform the work).

In addition, copyright also applies to sound recordings of performances (regardless of whether the recorded work is in or out of copyright), and this copyright usually lasts 70 years from date of publication, and is usually held by the record producer (in this case Chandos). Again, the holder of the copyright may possibly assign the copyright to others.

The performers of the work also have rights covering distribution and equitable remuneration etc, which is usually 70 years from when the recording was made.

In the case of the Chandos recording, a fee would have been paid to Bax's estate for permission to record and publish the work, and the performers would also be given a fee. Depending on the contracts, the fees may have be one-off payments or possibly a smaller recording fee with later payments based on number of sales.

So although the work was written in 1917, and the recording was made in 1982 and released in 1983, Bax's copyright lasts until 2023, the performers' rights last until 2052, and Chandos's copyright lasts until 2053. So, unless Yusuf has some sort of license agreement with Chandos then he is violating the rights/income of the composer, performers, and recording company. This seems unlikely as the work is released on a standard YouTube license...

Caveat Lector: much of this post is based on UK copyright law (which would certainly apply if someone based in the UK posted a recording by a UK composer/performers/record company, even if the server was elsewhere). Copyright in the US is different for sound recordings as these are often viewed as "work for hire" and attract even longer copyright periods.

The UK Intellectual Property Office posts a number of useful pages on copyright. I've used Copyright in sound recordings for this post. See also Copyright for a number of interesting pages on copyright issues. Hope this helps. Robevans123 (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Rob. That's wonderfully clear and informative. And the links will be very useful! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Easy as 123. EEng 05:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

A tickling stick for you!

	The tickling stick for humour beyond the call of duty
	How tickled are we all to see humorous quick-fire japes from Martin. As Sir Ken put it, "Laughter is the greatest music in the world and audiences come to my shows to escape the cares of life. They don't want to be embarrassed or insulted. They want to laugh and so do I - which is probably why it works." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Is that all you've left me, Threesie?? "I wanted to take the dog to obedience class but it wouldn't go." Hondootedlay a comic icon, and a fine singer (Decca: 45-F 11355) in his day too (53 Singles and EPs at discogs.com) ... e.g. try The Key (Ebb, Magenta, Jacques Larue) on Columbia (1962). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "You think you can get away, but you can't. I'll follow you home and I'll shout jokes through your letterbox."

I leave you Happy Easter with all the music we sang these days, four in a row ;) - I offered a hymn for Easter, but it wasn't fit between the April Fools, and - looking at today's Main page - I am happy about that. Will come tomorrow, - and we in Germany will still celebrate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Resurrección de Cristo by Jaime Serra (–1405)

Thank you, Gerda. And a Happy Easter to you, from St Bride's, Fleet Street! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC) [12]

Happy it was: I love this colourful world. Licensed. The composer was pleased ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Two more videos - composer too dead to approve - if you look here for 1 April. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Too dead to object also, I'm guessing. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Stopping wars?

if they really wanted to stop the war in Syria they target Russia. The link is to an article by Jonathan Freedland, just to illustrate that their view of themselves is challenged, and isn't the reasonable, self evident assertion you claim it to be. To say they oppose all bombs is propaganda because they are selectively vocal, selectively silent. Come on Martin, you're not this stupid.78.144.80.249 (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be using an article by Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian to make a political point about the Stop the War Coalition. What's that got to do with Brian Eno? The article says "... established ... to campaign against what it believes are unjust wars." So maybe we should use that description? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Well that would be better than what the article said which was 'dedicated to preventing and ending wars' !!The only way it seems to dedicate itself to ending the Syrian civil war is to cheerlead for Putin/Assad and hope he massacres all the citizens who are against the regime, end it that way. Best would be to find some article where Eno himself explains what he thinks its role is. If he heads this outfit he most probably has expressed some sense of what he thinks he is doing it for. 78.144.82.58 (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The edit summary you left for your original deletion was this: "Its said nothing about Russian massacres in Syria , this is not a place to spout its fatuous assertions about itself." That looked to me a trifle political. I have no particular drum to bang, either for or against that organisation, but passing editors may wish to mote that this story is currently headlined on its front page. Any suggestions for article improvement are probably best placed at Talk:Brian Eno#, where I started a thread? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC) p.s. even though he's President, teh artcole for Stop the War Coalition doesn't actually mention Eno.

o.k. I note the headline is titled 'Russian hysteria , its aims...' This is itself explicitly aligning itself with the Russian regime view, invasion of Ukraine, targeting civilians and hospitals in Syria, blowing up MH17 with a BUK, poisoning dissidents with plutonium, murdering journalists? Bah, its all 'hysteria'. 78.144.82.58 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks for (mis-)reading the first four words of the article title. Perhaps this explains why you have such a balanced view of things. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please parse the title for me correctly.78.144.82.58 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If I get beyond the fifth word, I'll let you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Peace Day

Remember my date: it was a peace day in 1945, pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes. The only prize that's really worth cherishing and celebrating. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Instead of going to the (crowded) funeral of the young man who maintained this website and suddenly died, I began about the choir. I know people from the group (with whom we often perform, so those concerts came to mind first + had sources), - they could barely rehearse Carmina burana the day he had told his wife he would go to rehearsal right after work - and didn't make it. RIP. They sang a Bach chorale first, and then turned to the other, - concert soon, such is LIFE. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Next funeral will be for Walter Fink, the one with compositions by 5 living composers for his 80th birthday, 3 of them present, that was on DYK on his birthday in 2010. Will look tomorrow if good enough for RD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that's very sad. But he had a good run. I see it's quite well-sourced with 14 references, but none in English (although that should not matter at all). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Last time I met him was for the Mozart Requiem, this one. The conductor is always good for something special, like that day a procession to music by Hildegard von Bingen, and a theatrical rendering of Remember not, Lord, our offences. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes "... a theatrical rendering of Remember not, Lord, our offences" otherwise known (at Wikipedia) as Jimbo's Little Black Block Book. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you see who wrote the Purcell? Had many reasons to say so ;) - I translated it to German, and built Hear my prayer, O Lord (Purcell) (which also appeared in the same concert but without dramatic gestures) on the model. - I went over the Fink sources, none of the 2010 links worked, sigh, but I found a few others sources (and expect more tomorrow in printed media). Will nom for RD now, please watch. I tried to select 3 from the list of composers he invited, - impossible. Every single one is/was great. Ligeti and Henze didn't come in person, but the others did! Take me as an unreliable source for that ;) - I remember Dutilleax, 90+ already, and talking vividly - the day I seriously regretted that I never learned French beyond being able to read a menu. LouisAlain, do you hear me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha. Gerda, most of us never have the chance to meet the people who appear at WP:ITNRD, let alone sing for them.... or even order dishes for Wikipedia from a 90-year old French menu! We are often short of reliable sources when someone notable, but not so famous, dies, aren't we. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I should make a list of the people about whom I wrote while they were alive but ... - worse when I didn't notice soon enough and wrote only after they died, such as Manfred Jung. Sometimes I don't know, - some singers must be quite old if they - hopefully - still live, take Yvonne Ciannella, the first coloratura soprano for me, in a madness scene. - One ref for Fink (Hauff) had good quotes by him, but only in German. Perhaps we could have one in the article? The shortest - and my favourite - is: "Musik entspannt – es sei denn, man hört zu." ("Music is relaxing, unless you listen." - not sure about the translation) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

What a great quote. How very true. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Great video tribute to Freddie, amongst others, there, of course. Although, for strange some reason, Alecia Beth Moore reminds me of the next Mayor of London.

I put the quote in the article. Psalm 84 or lovely dwelling. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Just saw and heard this, with Nadine Secunde now as the mother-in-law, returning after years to where her international career took off. Will search for a ref, as I am not reliable ;) - The soprano looked more like her first image, not like the new one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

RIP Wanda Wiłkomirska - practically no refs yet, all help welcome. The first violinist I heard on stage, playing the Wieniawsky. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

That ITN (or not) was disappointing, but we'll get her to the Main page ;) - How lovely to read in other news "Polish Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, he has heard, is more inclined toward forgiveness". Haven't heard the last word here for a while. Next singing Vierne. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

You and your damn ostriches...

Adding copyrighted YouTube links here, huh? Sounds like you have done a lot worse! talk to !dave 19:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You're not the first to rake this up after 4 years, you know. And to think they promised my a new start here on the Wiki project! And how do you think Bernie feels about it?? [13] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, right, yes, the real Bernie there! Nah, that one ain't got no chance in a presidential election. talk to !dave 20:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That's the best coverage of a Presidential Election I've ever seen. Thank you so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries. He votes for a third-party...weirdo! talk to !dave 21:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh. I lasted one full minute on that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong revert

Hello, I saw that you deleted the edits of the page "list of highest-attended concerts" by deleting Liam Payne's (110,000 people in the audience, 30 March, Dubai Global Village) statistics out of the list. Please fix it, the information was correct and cited correctly by multiple arabic sites. Syggan (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

When you say "please fix it", I'm not really sure what you have in mind. There seems to be a mini-edit war going on at that article currently, involving yourself and two Bharti Airtel IP accounts which geolocate to Madhya Pradesh in India? I wonder if you yourself have any knowledge of those? Yesterday I also opened a discussion thread at Talk:list of highest-attended concerts to which no-one else, including yourself, has yet contributed. I wonder would you care to add something there instead of edit warring? I've just had to clean up this last contribution to the article, which left in it a bit of a mess. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

And now, purely by conicidence, an IP editor, geolocating to "Santa Rosa, in the Philippines" also wants to have a go. How bizarre. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

And now, purely by conicidence, 29 minutes later, from Quebec in Canada: [14]. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Nikita Khrushchev

I don't now what your difficulty is. Images of his grave, including one by me, have been added to the article repeatedly over the years. They are removed because they are derivate works of the artwork.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

My difficulties are these: (1) your edit summary suggested that the image cannot be shown as "there is no freedom of panorama in Russia" - so the image of the destroyed khrushchyovka is also not permitted? (2) if the 8 images in "Category:Grave of Nikita Khrushchev" at Commons are also artworks in copyright, shouldn't they all be deleted? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

They probably need to be deleted, but I have enough on my hands without nomming them. As for freedom of panorama, it has no applicability to wrecked buildings. Although this article is almost a decade removed from FAC, I do try to keep up standards as best I can. I don't see an obvious fair use rationale either.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe some kind of thread or warning notice at the Talk page might avoid future wasted effort? Or are you saying that any image of any grave marker at Wikipedia is a derivative artwork and so cannot be shown? And exactly why are "wrecked buildings" excluded? That seems very odd. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. I'm open to any reasonable solution. I'm not sure how effective a talk page notice would be as those who add images don't tend to go there. No, obviously most grave markers are not barred, but K's was custom designed for his grave by an artist in the mid 1970s and has not passed into the public domain.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

As fro the wrecked building, the lack of freedom of panorama can bar photos of buildings under the law in some countries. I see by our page on commons on this that there is freedom of panorama as to buildings in Russia, just artworks are not covered. My thought was a wrecked building would no longer be subject to restrictions since it is wrecked.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I guess it would depend on if it was wrecked in an artistic way. I must admit I thought that nearly all grave markers were "custom designed" for the deceased, although that person is usually called a "monumental stone mason" and not an "artist". The best solution would seem to get all 8 mages deleted at Commons. I'll ask about that, although I somehow doubt this applies only to Nikita Khrushchev. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

So I've posted a suggestion here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This conversation above gives me the creeps - my commons items of D havent been challenged since about 2009 :( [15] horrors JarrahTree 13:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

But then [16] shows that even finding a plot let alone an artistic rendering above it, can be somewhat problematic for some. JarrahTree 14:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Haha, yes. I'm having regrets about nominating that image for deletion. In fact I'm now taking care to wear gloves whenever I leave the house. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

horrosho, pity this is goldfishbowl territory, otherwise have some marvelous funny anecdotes about nevsky prospect and d's gravesite - oh well, bck to the salt mine JarrahTree 14:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, an interesting new delivery mechanism that's for sure, comrade. But, sheesh, these Wiki Talk page discussions - I often fell like I've completely lost the plot. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

salt mines suck, this definitely needs a jump in a grave that has been surrounded by permafrost to duck for cover from endless talk pages, with no quack test JarrahTree 14:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wehwalt:, just to let you know, the Commons category:Grave of Nikita Khrushchev is now empty. So no possibility of further wasted effort. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a shame, but I'm just trying to follow policy as I understand it to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Likewise. And of course many of these images may be still freely available across the internet. I would imagine that no one ever asked the artist if he objected to a photograph of his work being published? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I've Been To The Mountaintop

Martin Luther King Jr., 28 August 1963

A series of programme on BBC Radio 4 today, including a unique tribute program in which global figures celebrate the legacy of King by reading the words of "I have a Dream", introduced by Professor Clayborne Carson, editor of the Martin Luther King papers. A small but fitting tribute to Dr King, who had made perhaps one of the greatest and most inspiring speeches of all time. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC) [17]

• Paul Simon - "So Beautiful Or So What"
• Public Enemy - "By the Time I Get to Arizona"
• Otis Spann: "Blues For Martin Luther King" (no copyright free video available, but you might just find one)
• Lambchop: “Sharing a Gibson With Martin Luther King, Jr." (no copyright free video available, but you might just find one)
• Bobby Womack “American Dream” (no copyright free video available, but you might just find one)
• Kris Kristofferson - "They Killed Him"
• Jerry Moore: “The Ballad of Birmingham” (no copyright free video available, but you might just find one) [18]

ITN recognition for Ray Wilkins

On 4 April 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ray Wilkins, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Folks may wish to search a certain well-known social media video site for "Ray Wilkins Red Card: England V.S Morocco in Mexico WC1986" posted by "Hamza Erresmy" on "17 Apr 2014". I wouldn't directly dare link to that clip here, of course, in case I get "sent off". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC) ... or worse.

Newuck

Thanks for your help again, as with the Welsh. Best wishes, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Rhymes with schmuck, no? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the time has come to get protection for the page to save M from himself. How do we go about that? Bmcln1 (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That's possible, but very unlikely - many would see his edits as in wholly good faith. And if they are that contentious it's a much larger problem, which might even warrant a question at WP:AN. If he does have a rhotic bee in his bonnet he's going to have plenty of scope for exercising it across literally thousands of articles that use a pronunciation guide. But I think he's given up on Newark-on-Trent for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. this might have been a better source for local dialect? (... or else joost fooken google it, mush)

Luv the slung! I didn't want to prolong the discussion even further, but what he's thinking of is the rhotitotetote in stressed syllables like CARdiff and PORlock, where North Americans and Scots can rhote to their heart's content. This is an unstressed syllable. Bmcln1 (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Wholly agree. He does seem to be getting a bit stressed out by it all, doesn't he. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Business must be a bit slow...

For Colin Grove recently. TBH I don't think he is all that convincing. Britney Spears is very good though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

But he does provide his own props, I hear. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC) ... yes, she drives me crazy

it all makes sense now

Why I kept going around in circles trying to get off anglesey all those years ago - it is in wales. JarrahTree 00:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Haha. Yes, it's sometimes easy to get stuck in Wales. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Assessment/Margaret Thatcher

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Assessment/Margaret Thatcher. --Neve~selbert 00:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

Thanks for the invite. Although, as you probably know, my recent interest was only sparked by that member of the Secret 1922 Committee who has an overly keen interest in footwear. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Learn something new every day?

Hi. I'm wondering if you can spare me a few moments? I was scanning my watchlist and your edit comment caught my eye. "This article is written in British English, which commonly treats collective nouns as plural. DO NOT change "WERE" to "WAS"." What is the definition of a collective noun, and why is it plural? (I always thought a collection of coins or stamps or whatever was a single entity, and hence singular.) With thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I was just copying the existing hidden note from the article, into my edit summary, of course. Many of the articles for UK bands have that note or something very similar. And that's because band names are an exception in British English - normally, as you say, collective nouns are singular. There's a definition of "collective noun" here. Hope that helps. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Very kind of you. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries. If you're really that interested, I guess you could even look it up in a encyclopedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Canterbury

Per MOS:LEADPRON, we should not include pronunciations for place names whose pronunciations would be obvious to English speakers. Canter is a common word, and -bury is a common suffix in English place names.
--maczkopeti (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I see. So -bury is always pronounced the same way in all English place names, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what Ed would have to say about that. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 14:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between bury as a word and as a suffix. Bury as a word is almost always /ˈbɛri/, while the suffix is usually reduced. An English speakers would know the difference, as both usages are common.
--maczkopeti (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, "usually", is it? I see. Good job we cater only for fluent English speakers, then. You don't think there would be any point at all in asking a question about usefulness at Talk:Canterbury? Your pronunciation thinning crusade continues apace. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

MOS:LEADPRON says "Do not include [pronunciations] for common English words with pronunciations that might be counterintuitive for learners (laughter, sword)." Why would bury be different?
--maczkopeti (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

How common is "-bury" as a place name suffix? And in spoken English as a whole? By all means give a percentage of common usage. And what criterion does MOS:LEADPRON apply, exactly? Would you consider yourself a fluent English speaker very familiar with British place-names? Which variant of "Canterbury" do you see as "counter-intuitive"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hi, thanks for your support in adding and reviewing the Southwest Airlines passenger to the 'List of Unusual Deaths' article. I'm only an occasional wikipedia user so I am a little bit nervous about major additions I add to articles - your support means a lot. Thank you :) ◄Sandshark23► talk♦contribs 13:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I admire your courage. Most editors "wouldn't be seen dead" at that article. A brownie??! Couldn't you manage something with some sassy orange?? Let's hear it for Mark Landler. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC) see "Sassy Trump Listens To Multi-Part Question From Reporter" at the "the social media website that dares not speak its name". etc.

John of the Cross

You reverted a change I made on the page of Dali's painting John of the Cross. Previously it said "1550" (unsourced?), but I corrected that based on what I found at the Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_the_Cross, where it says: "At some point between 1574 and 1577, while praying in the Monastery of the Incarnation in Ávila in a loft overlooking the sanctuary, John had a vision of the crucified Christ, which led him to create his famous drawing of Christ "from above". " So I have a source for 1575. What source do you have for the 1550??? GeoRic (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, GeoRic. You mean my revert here at Christ of Saint John of the Cross? I wounder could you explain to me what that source en.m.wikipedia.org is? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway

Martin, would you please back off? I'm experience a lot of difficulty editing these days and if I say I can't get to something that you think needs to be done right. now. then there's a good reason for it. Those articles are almost a decade old, and I'll get around to the fixes if I'm convinced they're needed. I didn't think there was any reason to reply to the other editor's talk page posts yesterday, and now it's just a big clusterfuck that I. cannot. deal. with. Please back away. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Victoria. I'm very sorry to hear you are experiencing any difficulty editing. I do hope you'll be able to resolve any issues you may have. It's often very easy to forget that other editors have real lives. If I've been in any way impolite or unfair I apologise unreservedly. Ernest Hemingway is a fine article that you should be proud to have help build. I'm sure any niggles recently identified there are no more than very minor stylistic ones that are really nothing to do with article content. I think I've said all that I can at the Talk page there and I won't contribute further if you don't think it's helping. Some editors seem to feel that discussions are a waste of time and all that matters are article edits. Kind regards. ~~

Use of the term "commit suicide" is obviously also a much wider issue than just applying to this one article. For example, there are at least four instances at Epidemiology of suicide which might have been expected to set the standard in some way? I'm really not sure why attention has recently been focused on the Hemingway article. Perhaps because, as a very well-known individual, his article gets lots of readers. Or perhaps because it's a Good Article and so can be expected to "lead the way" in terms of style. Whatever the reason, I'm sure this topic deserves scrutiny and discussion at a more centralized venue. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I'm not opposed to discussion or, to put it another way, putting on the kettle and settling in for a natter. But if the baby's fussing and granny wants her tea, the discussion turns to getting rid of slugs in the garden and whether we should follow the village ordinance or the county's, how quickly those slugs can be gone, while the baby's squalls reach a crescendo and granny is thumping the floor with her cane - well, nerves get frayed and it's not the best time. That's what happened. In terms of Hemingway's suicide - in a sense that suicide was similar to Robin Williams' for a more recent generation - and Hemingway's still garners a lot of attention. There are a few more articles to look through, but the ones written more recently were fine. The biography was written in 2009, before I was aware of this issue. Apologies for screaming, btw. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's all make sure we're "at home" to mellow Marjorie Manners. But let's not even answer the door to rotten old Rosemary Rude. I do hope we can avoid all this dreadfully troubling beastliness. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. 'ere, Vicky luv, sorry to 'ear about the wailing sprog. Maybe it's 'ungry? Or 'ave ya tried a shot of Calpol darlin'??

To Whom... from all those years ago... Cinderford's finest

	(What the ...) (What the f*** was that?)
	"You burden me with your questions You'd have me tell no lies You're always asking what it's all about But don't listen to my replies You say to me I don't talk enough But when I do I'm a fool These times I've spent, I've realized I'm going to shoot through..." And leave you. (Your purple prose just gives you away)

.... it's not every day one gets an email that ends "... that's your problem exactly, a waste of fucking space who only pokes but never actually does anything. Fuck you small man. Truly." ...(....please send answers on a postcard).

Provoked

Hi there, you thanked me for my edits on British Airways Flight 5390 so I assumed you're sort of on my wavelength and it's OK to talk frankly here. You've been having fun and games on there with our pal EEng whoever the F*** he is! I know it's highly unethical to get personal, but WTF is his problem!? Has he nothing better to do with his time? I would very much like your opinion on his removing huge chunks of text inc. the late great In pop.culture section that I've so lovingly worked and reworked in many an aviation disaster article of late. Can he just do that? And why the F doesn't he go delete some other stuff from some other places, what's his evil fascination with our Captain Lancaster's horrendous ordeal, hasn't he had enough to contend with without having his bloody wiki article shredded to pieces. Oh and did you see the Talk page discussion I attempted to start with our friend? Nice to see that my being a relative newcomer to Wiki editing automatically makes my opinion count for less than his. The fact that I've been a professional copy editor for over 20 years (with little time to devote to Wikipedia previously) must count for naught then! I have learnt (the hard way) that you have to have a very thick skin to survive in this environment, but this joker's really something else. I could go on but I just had to vent a bit... Thanks for listening and thanks for thanking too! Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rodney. Don't worry, we all face this kind of revolutionary zeal from EEng once he stumbles across an article that he finds "overburdened with detail" (whether we're newcomers or not). Please don't take it personally. As you will soon discover, what we do or have done in our real lives counts for very little at Wiki. Poor EEng has the misfortune to be an American, but he also has his cross to bear. He can be very witty when he's not on one of his article padding and cruft crusades. By the way, I've left a note at Talk:British Airways Flight 5390 about the DV windows. What do you think? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(Watching, and then Martin was faster:) Thank you for adding detail, - sometimes that's not wanted. Wikipedia - like it or not - has a tendency to stay with a status quo, so don't change too much at a time, and if you are reverted (some will tell you to argue on the talk page and find consensus for your change, but I tell you) go somewhere else. Thousands of articles need improvements, or to be written first. Try that, - then you can create a status quo ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

ps: Martin, did you see that I put delicate and brutal as required on the Main page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Gerda is so right. Avoiding a confrontation is always much more useful - finding a quiet place to improve is usually very much more productive. When you come back to an embattled article, you often find that things have been restored and improved by others. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Well done with Milana Chernyavska, Gerda. Now I'll have to spend hours searching for her on YouTube! (that Grieg Sonata has suddenly caught my eye....)

DYK that I made a suggestion in 2013 on a talk page that caused an uproar (and sadly made a user leave), and years later it was taken, without me doing a thing? - I didn't hear the pianist (yet), she was a red link on the violinist's article whom I heard ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"Oh, no Mrs Fawlty, don't mention the box!!" ... "I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right." [19] Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know what you mean. I've been itching to get on with some of my other more mundane articles like the Winter Olympics, Oreo cookies, Birmingham, the National Ice Centre, but sometimes a bit of a confrontation can be so much more fun! As long as it doesn't get out of hand. It's all the more rewarding when you get to meet some nice people too. Anyway, g'night, too tired for any more logical thinking right now. Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• As explained on the Talk page, I removed the inpopcult section because uncited material like that simply does not belong, per project guidelines; when you're new in a community it behooves you to give special attention to learning its rules and ways of doing things, and that's where your inexperience comes in. As for the rest, see WP:ASTONISHME and WP:RISOTTO. EEng 02:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. It's OK to say fuck.
• Here are some bee hooves for you to enjoy. Currently I'm struggling with my n-hooves. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

David Nutt

You do know that 67 years is way pass the current standard retirement age for most folk here in the United Kingdom, don't you?! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

If Theresa May and her chums have their way, I guess we'll all be working until at least 80. But I don't think retirement age is legally enforced in every UK job or profession, is it? What about at Imperial College London? I guess they must have a policy written down somewhere? But perhaps we'd be better discussing this more centrally at Talk: David Nutt? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC) ... way pass!!

re: Fontina

Yes, Alex was right to revert me, see User_talk:Alessandro57#re:_Fontina for context. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for having the occasional hovercraft full of eels, but perhaps not in an encyclopedia. I applaud the inventiveness, but I was a bit confused. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hermann Rorschach

Hello Martinevans123. This is a heads up that a group from my history of psychology class will be adding to the Hermann Rorschach article. This is part of the APS Wikipedia Initiative, and is being supervised by me and consultants from the Wiki Education Foundation. The work on Rorschach has been vetted by user:Ian (Wiki Ed) before they've been allowed to make the changes. I am aware that you have reverted this article before, and I've warned them to be very careful and leave a message about what they are doing on the Talk page. Thanks for your consideration. J.R. Council (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi James. Yes, I think we had some minor issues last time. But that latest change looked really very promising. I don't want to step on Ian's toes, so I'll try not to rush in to change or revert. Many thanks for letting me know. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Lets hope the students don't blot their copybooks. Robevans123 (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Eek!!. And to think I was deliberately holding back there. D'oh! you, dirty dog, Rob. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Less of the animal metaphors please. I'm more into sentence compl.... Robevans123 (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Great to see you stepping out, Rob, in your Sunday best! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again! I know that the students will appreciate it, if you do see something wrong, to help them see the error of their ways and correct it. J.R. Council (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The error of their ways?? Oh, no!.... sad face. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Testing Times for Martin's Magic Eraser. Robevans123 (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Could we please stop using this Talk page to swap FSB and GRU coded messages? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Could the script case have a connection to the new EU budget? I mean, - after the Brexit, our (EU) balance will be negative (the hesst - Budget Difficit). We (my EU) need investors from England (against Novitshok - acceptance and an investors - visa (permanent residence permit for the EU).

Weill, usually. The EU has been and still is working with another kind of venom poison (methyl mercury) (the judiciary, the police, the social services, the citizens' initiatives, the drug dealers, etc.).

WikiVorspraecher (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the hot tip. I'll try and stock up. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Zara Tindall

Hi,

Yes, as the 18th reference says she used her married name for the first time on that occasion. I tried to add it myself, but I'm not a frequent user of the english wikipedia so I didn't know how to do it.

--Qwerty1999 (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I just took a look and it's not good news. The source at Ref 18 is this one from the Daily Mail. But that newspaper is no longer used, as per WP:DAILYMAIL, so alas it will have to be removed. So we now need two sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

New User

I am most definitely a new user. If you want to see my statement on this you can read it on my user page. Please do not spread vindictive rumours about me and drag me into issues that don't involve me. I've only had an account for 11 days but I've been made to feel so unwelcome on here for daring to have an opinion that I'm tempted to delete my account and return to being a read-only user. goodforaweekend (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Very sorry if you found my subjective opinion unpalatable. I said that you "looked so very well-informed and skilful for an editor with such a new account?" And I said it was "Almost as if [Cassianto was] being baited there." By all means take the first bit as a compliment. And could you kindly excuse the last bit as an over-generalisation of what seems to have happened to User:Cassianto over the past year? Why did you wait for so long to tell me? It's a bit late to adjust my comment now that it has been archived. What would you like me to do? I really don't think that one comment in defence of that user counts as "spreading vindictive rumours", do you? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I still remain truely amazed that the first edit that a previosuly "read-only" new editor would make, before even creating their own Userpage, is this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

So, what would you like me to do? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec) "Every editor is a human being" ;) - shamelessly canvassing: Tobias Kratzer who couldn't decide which staging of Rigoletto he preferred to present at an international competition, so took two, one as an American woman, the other as a Bulgarian man. DYK? I saw his Vasco da Gama on a space voyage - remarkable! - Welcome, goodforaweekend, nice to meet you! There are many good things to do that won't bring you in heated zones! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I myself try to stay away from heated zones. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. ... that space thing will never work.

Citing

The joys of Visual Editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Martinevans 123, Greetings to you and appreciate that you looked for source to strengthen the article as many editors would not do - an act needed to be praised! I reply your question here instead of in Kevin De Bruyne page as there is nothing for me to change or edit for the moment. I used Visual Editor to cite source for such the automated programmed format (such as date /use work instead of publisher) is a little different from manual input using Template: cite web; however, as I found it is convenient, easy and fast for I do a lot of editing in Wikipedia. See below. citing from internet source - see WP:CITEWEB and its template -see Template: cite web and please note that Wikipedia can NOT be the source - see WP:CIRCULAR. Instructions: Citing source from web - Do not copy and past the URL address and paste into the body text, but click "cite" on menu page and fill in the fields as per the Template: cite web and save when it is done). Examples below: To add an in-line text citation for an internet reference, there are 3 web citing methods as below: 1.Source edit mode : fill in the source info as below {{cite web |url= |title= |last= |first= |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date= }} 2a. Visual edit mode :Please click "cite" on the menu bar and fill in the info 2b.Visual edit mode: download Visual Editor and paste the URL and all fields will be filled automatically. Examples To add an in-line text citation for an internet reference: <ref>{{cite web|url =https://www.mmafighting.com/2018/4/5/17203890/watch-conor-mcgregor-throw-a-dolly-through-ufc-223-fighter-bus-window |title = Watch Conor McGregor throw a dolly through UFC 223 fighter bus window|accessdate = 15 April 2018|author=|last =Al-Shatti |first = Shaun |publication = mmafighting|date = 15 April 2018|archivedate =15 April 2018 }}</ref> To add an in-line text citation for a paper reference: <ref name="Green">Green, William: ''Observers Aircraft'', page 228. Frederick Warne Publishing, 1991. ISBN 0 7232 3697 6</ref> (note: remove nowiki tag when input the citation. Fill the info and change the date as needed. See on source edit view mode.) Thank you and have a wonderful day. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 21:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Sounds great. Question: is it better to add an unformatted ref or leave a statement unsourced? Do you never use or recommend "reFill"? Thanks. Have a great wonderfully formatted day. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Hi Martinevans1123, Thank you for the questions above. First of all you need to ping me so I would know you message me. I placed your talk page on my watch lists as I had written to you earlier, for such I know you wrote me a message. You could insert {{ping|CASSIOPEIA}} (please remove "nowiki" upon replying - you could only see this in source editing mode and not visual editing mode) to message me on your talk page and the system will notify me that I have a message from you. To your questions here 1. add unformatted ref or leave a statement unsourced - Here is some background first - Content added/edited in Wikipedia needs needs "inline citation" from independent "third party" reliable source (in any language) for verification to gauge the nobility criteria is met. The articles's inline citation is the WP:BURDEN which it is on the person adding the information. Please note official website, records of sport events or individual player records are consider primary source and not independent source, and social network source such as facebook, twitter, instagram, imbd and etc are considered NOT reliable source and can not be used for citing. Independent reliable source are sources are those obtain from major newspaper, such as The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, CNN news and etc. or source obtain from major publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). (Note: Wikipedia can NOT be the source - see WP:CIRCULAR). So it is better to add unformatted ref over no sourced; however, it you download Visual editor, citing is so much faster and easier with just one click away. 2. Refill - I do use refill and it is recommended if there are many parts of the content share the same source/ref. 2a. You open the refill tool here [20] and copy and page the page name and click "fix page" and it will assign the "name ref" for you. 2b. You could click "page" on the manu bar and choose "tools" then click "expand bare references" and it will bring you to refill page and all you have to do is submit the page. 2c. You could do it manually - after you have cited the inline citation. Go back and added the name (you assigned the name of the ref instead refill do it automatically for you (usually by number such as 0, 1, 2.... ect). I am using the exam above - see below <ref name="Mcgregor dolly throwing">{{cite web|url =https://www.mmafighting.com/2018/4/5/17203890/watch-conor-mcgregor-throw-a-dolly-through-ufc-223-fighter-bus-window |title = Watch Conor McGregor throw a dolly through UFC 223 fighter bus window|accessdate = 15 April 2018|author=|last =Al-Shatti |first = Shaun |publication = mmafighting|date = 15 April 2018|archivedate =15 April 2018 }}</ref> I have insert the ref name here - <ref name="Mcgregor dolly throwing"> (instead just <ref>) and on other content which also use the same ref then we dont need to recite the same reference but to insert <ref name="Mcgregor dolly throwing" />. (add the extra / after the assigned name). After you have save the page, you could go back and check the Reference section and you would see "a b + ref". (a and b means 2 part of the content using the same ref). It is useful to asign the name yourself if you want to trace the ref in the content. Hope it helps. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 22:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Thanks ever so much for telling me about ReFill. I must try and get round to using that tool. I don't use Visual Editor. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Boulez GA review

Hi Martin Thanks for your edits on the Boulez page. I don't want to just undo your change re photo credits without explanation - but it was a condition of the Cleveland Orchestra giving permission to use the photo that we credit the photographer. I think we'll either have to reinstate or lose the photo, which would be a shame... Best David

Hi David. My understanding (through painful experience) is that permission to use images may not be given dependent on acknowledgement in article space, but rather only (as normal) at the image upload page. If you can direct me to any policy which shows something different, I'd be very grateful. That said, I have no real problem with with those credits, so feel free to restore them. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The licenses explicitly call out (don't make me find it, please) that acknowledgement via a link is sufficient. Those donating images can't expect an in-caption credit any more than those contributing text can expect to see themselves credited directly in articles. EEng 13:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, what a surprise. So how's Japan? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Immaculate. EEng 06:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Please give my regards to Jim Morrison. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I just nominated him for DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well done, Gerda. You must mean the real Pierre, not our friend "Lunchtime O'Boulez". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the real one whom I had the honour to meet, however briefly (concert is mentioned here). Sorry for the emotions I caused when I tried to improve his article. Made me loose all interest in repeating. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Stanley Cavell

Hi Martinevans. On Stanley Cavell's page, you asked whether to include the philosopher's birthname. In one of his two autobiographical works (A Pitch of Philosophy and Little Did I Know, I don't remember which) he relates that the name "Goldstein" was assigned to his father at Ellis Island by a callous bureaucrat. I don't know if there's any standing criterion, but I would err on the side of omission: it was not his father's birthname. Also, you can ask him. He sometimes responds to emails. :P Anarchic Fox (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

May thanks for reminding me and for the clarification. I would certainly not want trouble him. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Um, so is it alright if I remove the birthname? :P Anarchic Fox (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd strongly advise you to ask at the article Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, will do. I thought you were the one who added it, thus my presence here. Anarchic Fox (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course, with this edit. Most BIO articles have the same thing in the infobox as in the text. Indeed, the infobox is meant to summarise main facts from the article and have nothing unique, I think. That's why I added it. If you feel there is a good case for casting doubt on that name as a birth name, I think this should be made clear in the text. You seem to know far more about Cavell than do I. I have no very strong view either way about including any name. But I think a discussion at the Talk page is probably the best way ahead. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The box is exactly where that information belongs, not in the body. At least until the biography rises above "C" class. I've seen enough behind the scenes to know that minor rules about inclusion are rarely followed on neglected pages. Anarchic Fox (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You think it's ok to have unique info in the box? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I'm hard pressed to come up with an argument otherwise, except for the highest-class biographies. The boxes tend to be filled out most reliably. With such a uniqueness rule, you would be forced to generate boilerplate pages for start-class ones. Then the evil wikignomes (hat tip to a once friend) would appear some day when noone is looking and delete the page for notability, as evidenced by the boilerplate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchic Fox (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I was just assuming it was a matter of consistency. Most bio articles have birthnam (with an added explanation if necessary, perhaps in a footnote) elsewhere in the article. That's all. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Best wishes on your editing. :) Anarchic Fox (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Anarchic Fox. It's great to see you improving Stanley Cavell so rapidly. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

NFCC8

Martinevans123, do you agree with another editor's observation that this image - after 5 years of usage/display upon the Wikipedia Dennis Nilsen article, now fails NFCC8?--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I must admit I was a bit surprised when I saw that. Shame it's rather low quality. Don't criteria change after the subject's death? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC) .. no need to ping... I do read my Talk page, honest.

Thanks, Martin. I haven't checked whether criteria change after the subject's death, but it certainly makes finding an alternative free usage image more difficult to find. I agree that (actually like the newspaper in question generally), the image is of a lower quality than the original, but that was done to increase the fair usage rationale. This alongside the text relating to the image, which 'broke' the story to the British public for the 1st time. The image was actually flagged as failing NFCC8 a few days before Nilsen's death by a certain user.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A "certain user." That sounds a bit suspicious. I'd say it was a key image for that article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean it in that regards, not much, it's just someone who removed it but with just a blunt message for doing so. I know they're more than a century old and in the Commons, but I don't see the newspaper etc. images removed from the Jack the Ripper article. I'll reinsert it if you like, but please can you and EEng keep an eye on the article and that image. Thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll certainly try to, yes. I'm sure we'd all agree that Nilsen was a lot more "real" than Jack. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone may probably try and steamroll the press over the next few days..--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Martinevans123. 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.NickMcGowan (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I have read your email and will respond in due course. I hadn't realized that changing a title to italic font might attract so much attention! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I have replied in kind. Please feel free to let me know how you get on. It must be interesting to be just a spectator here? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Nick. Looking forward to all the scoops. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Owl

You do to copy right any thing you find on a website! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge of fact (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I understand you, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

this owl? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks for that, Gerda. I had no idea. R.O. de Vries How lovely. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks as though everything they added at Talk:Owl (and also at Talk:Polar Bear) is copy/pasted from websites. The pattern of adding it under a edit protect request seems to have been used in the past by KrisT2007, and also by an IP address... Robevans123 (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"Ooo, see you Jimmy!" .... see you over at WP:CopyVio Police. But yes, I was beginning to think I had been drawn into some kind of Ancient Welsh epic. -- Mabinogio 123 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

A strange hinterland of potterish animal magic. Now, where did I leave my zoo keeper's hat? Robevans123 (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

More music on my talk, today mostly the solemn mass. Funny that another Rutter received thousands of views just because it was sung for the Royal wedding ;) - I wrote the article in memory of a friend who seemed to disappear, - but looks in every now and then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Could link to the mass in Llandaff Cathedral ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Really? Which one? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

still the same, "it was brought to a playable stage by Easter 2010 with its inaugural performance (the Gloria of Louis Vierne's Messe solennelle) at the Easter Vigil service on 3 April 2010." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

new: the sp'rit of truth --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice work Gerda. And there's me thinking it was Ardbeg. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

When we sang it, I explained that it was something energizing. We received instructions from the Director of Church Music at Salisbury Cathedral, whose first comment (after praise) was the question: What is the most important word in the first line? Yes, Love, so sing towards it, - don't rest on "If". He also encouraged a more moving tempo. Singing in that place was among my unforgettable moments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I do hope you took a pack of wetwipes with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

talking 2006 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

ps: we sang it again - on my request - on one of my birthdays, in a service which also featured the premiere of a piece nicknamed "Gerda's Halleluja" ;) - the official name is "Halleluja St. Martin". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Bishop Michael

What jaw-dropping Royal Weddings should be all about, I feel. What's next, the Michael and Justin Show ?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

All too easy to imagine the later scenes at Frogmore House, with Charles vigorously Dad-dancing to "Get Down" by Gilbert O'Sullivan and "Macarena" by Los del Río, and Camilla belting out her famous karaoke version of "Dancing Queen" by ABBA. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Conversation from LouisAlain's talk page

ii I'm bringing this here rather than polluting his talk page as the subject does not concern him really but new pages patrolling. I wish you would avoid taking words out of context and putting a spin on them that I had no intention of giving and did not suggest in my comments. I don't know if you really didn't understand what I was saying or whether you were being disingenuous for some reason or another but I'd rather clear things up. New pages patrolling is not an easy task because you have to sort through the crud of undisclosed paid editing, fan pages, hoaxes, newcomer's efforts, lazy editors work and so on.

When you come across an article such as Véronique Bracco for which there is one source [21] that doesn't even mention the subject normally you tag it and move on. As this is a French pianist/composer that also has a page on FRWP and I am a French speaker I had a quick look at it. The page has been tagged as not having the necessary sources since November 2017. Both versions (English and French) contain unsourced claims that I took the time to tag for clean up. This is the kind of work that should not be left on wikipedia in its present state. IMHO an editor that has nearly 100k edits should not be creating pages like this. This article was translated almost word for word with almost no changes and no search for sources at all. His reply the very fact that this pianist is refered to through the Authority control model means that she enjoys some notability is not enough I am afraid. I don't know if you had a look at the authority control Worldcat but her sheet music is held only in the BNF whose role is as "the national repository of all that is published in France" (my bolding).

Also if you understand French have a look at the subject's own comments on the French version's talk page here, in this extract she says "En tout cas, merci svp de ne surtout pas supprimer cette page wikipedia sur moi. Elle est très importante pour mon travail, pour mes concerts, mes projets musicaux et ma présence en ligne." a quick translation reads "Anyway please whatever you do, do not delete this Wikipedia page about me. It is very important for my work, my concerts, my musical projects and my online presence". The links she provides are a mixture of social media, passing mentions and links to recordings that were self-published, by a publishing house that only publishes works by one artist and those accompagning her and is run by a member of this artist's family apparantly.

Anyway it is not up to the new pages reviewers to clean up after editors that one could be forgiven in thinking seem to prefer quantity to quality. As a pending changes reviewer would you accept unsourced information in a BLP? I doubt it and at new pages patrol we have instructions to tag this kind of thing or nominate for deletion. I hope this clears up some of your concerns. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) So you would rather go about "polluting this talk page", would you?! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you bother reading the page I was talking about and the request from another editor to carry this on elsewhere or are you just being flippant? Dom from Paris (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ouch! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 17:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure I could think up some equally derogatory alternative options if you wanted, Gareth. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Dom from Paris, I have not questioned the value of "your work as a new pages reviewer". What I was questioning was the way you have "dealt with" LouisAlain, who in my experience is a very highly-valued, collaborative and productive editor. Perhaps he's made a mistake. We all make mistakes, don't we? I don't really see that as good reason for you to invite him to leave the project. I'm not the only editor who feels this way. Apparently, so you tell us, "this kind of reaction ... comes with the territory", but I think you are valuing your little piece of "territory" more highly than an experienced fellow editor. That seems a little short-sighted to me. You seem quite unfriendly. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) p.s. who exactly invited you to "carry this on elsewhere"? p.p.s. and I'm guessing you didn't mean the Botswana National Front there?

I took this as a suggestion but I may have read more into it. [22]. I'm amazed that you guessed I am shortsighted, well done but I am also now a little longsighted too but we all go through that one day or another (hey it's actually quite fun to pretend to not understand the meaning of someone's words!) but if you met me IRL you would undoubtedly find me extremely friendly indeed unless of course you try to twist my words. Come or go with the territory is a pretty well-known phrase that indicates that when one accepts to do something then one has to accept the more difficult aspects of the task and this has nothing to do with a territory in the way you are suggesting. And to deal with can have several meanings you have chosen to attribute a sense that is close to punishment and I presume you knew that was not what I meant otherwise you wouldn't have put inverted commas around the word. You seem to like looking for hidden meanings but really there are none here just common or garden English expressions. He probably did make a mistake but he did not make a constructive reply when I templated him which with hindsight was lazy of me as it chucks out a sort of welcome message that is of no use to an editor with that many articles to his name but seeing as he reacted in a way that one expects much newer editors to do I didn't bother checking his history. mea culpa. Anyway I've said what I wanted to get my POV over I hope that you understand. Happy editing Dom from Paris (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Dom and Out from Paris, you'll never be able to trust me. Even IRL. I may try and twist your words. Happy forgiving. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. many thanks for your detailed and sincere explanation. p.p.s. useful Chemistry link.

Humm not sure how much "sel" I should add to the above but I think I'll take it at face value! Happily I am not editing in visual so I got all the piped jokes without clicking! And I will auto-trout myself for the avoidable template reaction! Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"Llenarte las botas!"..... as they (probably don't) say in Sigüenza. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thank you!

Hello, Martinevans123, and thank you for your thank you. I briefly posted and then removed a few remarks about the former Meghan Markle's mixed-race heritage, and then I thought to myself "Y.I., don't stir up trouble. Take that down." So I did. I apologize if the removed material was the very thing you had thanked me for. (I'm still learning, and can't tell or do a lot of things.) Newbie gaffes! Thanks again! Have a great rest of the day. Yseult-Ivain (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)