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.
... [5] ... then peace will guide the planets and love will steer the stars
... jus' coz... (most favouritist Jankel guitar solo(s) evva evva) (and even more brillianter live)!!
... an incessant driving backbeat, jazz syncopated piano (mmmm, those trills), sly vocal, soaring blues harp... just funk bliss ... and news just in: [6]
Oi! Oi! ... Their shapeless haircuts don't enhance, Their ghastly patterned shirts.. (allegedly)
"You babes talk about your madison shoes
We've got a thing we call the madison blues"
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
Sacks
Doing it this way is still copyvio, since the sentence structure (with a minor quote) was exact ... the author needs his own article anyway, so I shortened the whole thing. We don't need that much detail on Hayes in Sacks' article. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poor old Ollie, eh? He waits 75 years before he "allows himself to fall in love" and then even that subtlety is swept away here in the cause of avoiding copyvio. I'd never have thought I'd be giving credit to Vanity Fair for the delicacy of their writing, but your ruthlessly efficient tidy-up has proved me wrong. I'd agree we wouldn't want so much detail about Hayes, if he had an article. But he doesn't. And until he does, I would have thought a mere 12 words would be at least instructive. Still, I guess if the article is, as you say, "still dreadful", then no-one will really notice. Not least poor Oliver. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Vanity Fair article gave the fellow a sentence. And didn't even tell us where that relationship ended, so to me, the whole thing is undue sensationalism, until/unless someone reads the book and figures out if there is more worth saying. If someone cares that much, they could write his article! Vanity Fair writes a whole article on Sacks, but Wikipedia-- true to form-- cherrypicks one sensational tidbit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are interested in getting the book? I don't like the "teaser" aspect of the writeup-- it may get you to buy the book, and that's what that edit did :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, now I understand! A tasty little bit of (very subtle) Vanity FairKnopf promo work, eh? You lucky thing, I'm very envious. I would get the book, but I'm too busy reading up about Jeremy Vine's basketball career break. But feel free to send me one of your free copies. B. Twaddle123 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously! Glad you see it now. They hint at a relationship, but tell us nothing ... was there even a relationship? Or just an infatuation? Does this guy even belong in Sacks' article? For that matter, is it a BLP vio? We have to buy the book to found out! Only on Wikipedia ... so better for someone who cares to write an article on the fellow. (That would not be me :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you never know... maybe VF will do a feature on Billy Hayes and you'll be tempted to buy his autobiography. I'm sure there's a lot more material in that Sacks article that could be used to expand the article, without the need to buy the book at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ego?
Hi Martinevans123, what is the reason you resist my attempt to simplify and combine your edit into the previous paragraph? As you can imagine, new information has appeared dozens of times for this event. Every time it does, we haven't been adding it to the article into a new paragraph with the date, that would be too laborious to read. (I am not new to this article; I have been one of the primary editors of this article from the beginning.) Prhartcom (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just some very dodgy piece of fancrufted-synthetic-blog-rambling I stumbled across the other day. Don't worry about it - it's bound to get RfD-ed! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC) ... but I agree, a great video and very inventive lyric![reply]
Hahahahahaha. Thanks so much. A very plausible alternative explanation of course, although I couldn't say definitively that the guy in the toilet was actually the captain. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC) But, wow - you get so much legroom and such a generous aisle width! Is that club class or business, I wonder? Almost as tempting as those foxy Air Dorises[reply]
For your arrival at heated discussions where you inject much needed humour. I have found myself chuckling at some of your recent comments to do with UKIP and the Moors Murders; especially here and here. Cheers! CassiantoTalk19:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's the loonies who stand as independents who I like. When I was a kid living in a small village in Essex, there was a woman who walked her pet duck every morning around the roads. She lived off the land and made nettle soup, wild berry pie and, on the odd occasion, ate fresh(ish) road kill as a treat. She ended up standing for the Greens where she just dipped the majority vote. I still think the votes she received were people taking the piss out of her without her actually knowing it. Also, it's good to see a certain, recent editor who cropped up at the Moors Murder talk page, turn up after 35 seconds and offer his opinion on Farage. We suspected it all along of course. CassiantoTalk19:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better translation in the circumstances, I agree. But if you haven't yet encountered marc, sip with caution … great caution. Awien (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about ballet: not without irony that now "my Romeo" is in DYK position 1, matching the dancer on my talk (great woman, RIP). Found an excellent image of him today, look for Cranko Era. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just the 2015 one by the look of it. Referring to UK elections by their number appears to be rather unique to Wikipedia; we probably shouldn't be doing it. Alakzi (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lol, u gotta love Krishnan Guru-Murthy - "he ain't cool 'cos he ain't got no hat". Pharrell's very articulate isn't he, (apart from that sheep reference, of course). If you think moving the article back makes it all fine again - by all means, go ahead. I'm stepping back from this one! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relax
Don't like my wording? Well then fix it to your liking. Don't like a source? Well then find ones that satisfy you. You can help out you know. Cadencool22:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did fix it. Even if you like something, it's sometimes possible to improve it? That's how Wikipedia works, isn't it? Any my edit summary "needs better source" applied to my own addition - previously there was no source at all. On second thoughts, I've taken that link out, as copyright is not clear. Now that you're here, what else would you like to scold me for? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's always possible to improve edits and yes that is how it works around this madhouse. Thanks for fixing it, it's much better than the way I wrote it, that's for sure. As for your edit summary, I read it wrong I must admit. Apologies for that. Cadencool20:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth is adding "<ref>[WW2 Langham training dome restoration complete]</ref> a reference/citation?
Wikipedia:Citing sources states "A full citation fully identifies a reliable source and, where applicable, the place in that source (such as a page number) where the information in question can be found. For example: Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 1. This type of citation is usually given as a footnote, and is the most commonly used citation method in Wikipedia articles."
Also above where your "reference" is, the article says "The concrete structure has been restored and a museum has been installed" so you're just repeating something already said in the article.
Do you want the reference details or not (it's easily done by a User:Dispenser/Reflinks)? You think all references have to have a page number? You think that adding sources which match the material in an article is " just repeating something already said in the article"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "<ref>[WW2 Langham training dome restoration complete]</ref>" is not a reference.
If you are trying to reference some part of the following section in the article "Langham Dome, which sits on the edge of the former base, is one of only six remaining training domes in the country and was built in 1942. Film of enemy planes was projected onto its walls for target practise. The concrete structure has been restored and a museum has been installed, following grants from English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund", you need to say where you got the information from such as a book, website or anything else that is reliable like a plaque from an appropriate group/company.
Hi, I'm a bit puzzled that you've thrown out the image of George Ewart Evans that I've loaded with an NFUR - obviously it'll soon be deleted if we don't restore it. I think it a strong, characterful portrait of the man. Is he one of your relatives? If so, perhaps that would explain why you have marked the 'new' image as "own work" despite its also being "from an exhibition at the Museum of East Anglian Life, Stowmarket, Suffolk"? If you don't own the copyright, it'll be a candidate for speedy deletion! If it were my choice, I'd at once restore the old image; otherwise, I'd have thought an NFUR would be needed for the new one. Your thoughts? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate that the NFUR image is of such low quality. You'd think an unmarked image in a permanent public exhibition stand might be amenable to release into the public domain. I added "own work" as I took the photo. Perhaps it's worth formally contacting Evans' estate. The very helpful guides at Abbot's Hall did not seem too bothered. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm distraught that you found my reaction to your suggestion regarding the entry on that nice Mr Wales discouraging. That was not my intention. My intention was to be encouraging to you and my hope was that others would join in the discussion. I did once add something myself to the entry on JW, and when last I looked it was still there. Nevertheless, it (the page) seems to be on an awful lot of peoples' watchlists, which in turn invites a certain .... caution, when adding stuff. I STILL haven't listened to the Desert Island Discs episode you commended (still haven't really recovered from the death of Roy Plomley). Still might. But if you yourself are even halfway serious about improving the JW Page, I'm pretty sure that there are things you could take from the Young/Wales exchange that could be added as sources for things that currently appear as unsourced assertions in the article itself. Though worded like that, I appreciate it might feel a tad low profile. Anyhow, please don't feel discouraged. There are plenty of wikipedia contributors who should feel more discouraged than they do, but - in my opinion which is the only one to which I have access on the subject - you are not, and never were, one of these. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One has got to admit though, that they were cleverly linked. You really have inspired me. Thank you for providing the entertaining laugh though, much appreciated. Wes Mouse | T@lk13:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wittgenstein
You reverted my removal of Wittgenstein's cause of death from the infobox. Please explain why. I'm a newbie, so I looked at the Manual of Style for Infoboxes and it says that infoboxes should summarize only key facts. Most biographical infoboxes on Wikipedia do not include cause of death. Was Wittgenstein's cause of death especially notable? It merits only a single sentence in the entire article and I see no citation that would indicate that his prostate cancer was especially notable. We wouldn't want to clutter up the infobox with favorite color, shoe size, names of pets, etc., so why cause of death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantagenarian (talk • contribs) 22:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no very strong feelings. It's just that your removal did not seem, to my mind, justified by your edit summary. Personally I don't regard "cause of death" as comparable with "favorite color, shoe size, names of pets". But I agree that it has little bearing on his work or his notability, perhaps none whatsoever. I will not revert you again. But I would much prefer you to open a discussion thread at the Talk Page. Thanks for looking at MoS Infoboxes. And thanks for taking the time to post here. (Please try and remember to sign your posts). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC) p.s. umm, a newbie yes, you've made a total of 12 edits 13 edits in 4 years?
[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clearer- It's only a little thing, but as the page is at GAC, it's something which should be sorted. WP:SAMPLE partly explains how we should interpret WP:NFCC#3 in the case of music samples. Namely, they generally should be no more than 10% of the song's length or 30 seconds (whichever is shorter), and they generally should be no more than 64kbps. This particular sample is fine with regards to length, but its quality is, currently, too high. This can be fixed using Audacity, as explained on the MOS page just linked. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I'm sure those massed bootleggers and pirate samplers will be queuing up to rob this sample off Commons. I'll upload a new one as soon as I can. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not very technical - how does 22.05KHz compare with 64kbps? Should all samples have rates labelled in kbps instead of Khz? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the sample is 154 kbps. You can see it right underneath the player (where the actual image would be shown if this was an image upload). I don't know if/how KHz compares to kbps, but I'm not sure why it matters? Josh Milburn (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And why is this "generally should be no more than 64kbps"? What are the exceptions? If it were a hard limit, then uploading above that limit ought to be disabled by the upload wizard, with an appropriate error message? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably escaped your attention but I think it's safe to say that I've worked on the content and presentation of the linked articles in just about every DYK hook for the past I-don't-know-how-long. But of course that's irrelevant to some. And who said being mediocre was bad? It's better than fucking crap. It's better than just about half of things after all... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness me, after all these long months, Rambler! Talk of the devil and all that..... Yes, my attention span is rather low, as you probably know. And no, I-don't-know-how-long either, I'm afraid. But almost every DYK hook does sound incredibly impressive. You have my every sympathy. I'm hoping, one day, to raise the standard of my own pathetic contributions from "fucking crap" to the heady heights of "mediocre". In fact, I'm hoping there's a "Barnstar of Mediocrity" on offer (hint, hint). But thanks for dropping by and lightening the tone so. Gosh Rambler, you are a card! Tee-hee. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC) ... and if you do come again, make sure you don't bring that moron EEng with you.[reply]
I didn't expect anything more, but sometimes presenting just a very select part of the story as some kind of de facto evidence of non-participation in a process is clearly disingenuous. Have a great day, glad to see the Belgians took one hell of a beating. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, another one already! I have skimmed over it, but I am loath to make any detailed input. Your analysis seems perfectly fair. It's a bit like max speed all over again. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On Kay Burley
My most recent edit wasn't correcting NPOV persay, but I just added it into the edit summary anyway - fast paced edit. I believe that my edit was more neutral anyway, as the nature of her interview has already been established in the section, so it makes sense to move onto the next topic without lingering on the aggression in the interview. Wondering about your thoughts. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 15:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That HuffPo source is pretty unforgiving. It says ".. cringe-inducing interview ... grilled by the Sky News anchor ... Burley gave Varney short shrift as he attempted to answer". Maybe other sources are kinder? In which case they could be used. I chose the word "assertive" thinking that was actually toning down from "aggressive". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Australia so I really don't know who Dale Winton is. I've seen Chris Evans though and he's clearly not right for the job. Personally, I think this bloke is the only one right for the job. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.
What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.
This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.
Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is often a perception of never the twain about "admins" and "content editors", usually quite misplaced. But I do hope we don't "lose" a good editor. I sometimes think adminship should be strictly fixed term. My very best wishes and good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We shall see...I will be easing into my new role over the next few days. I don't see any reason why I wouldn't be able to continue at least some of my larger-scale editing, as it's fairly easy to fit into the cracks of my day. Regardless, as of now I'm planning on a fixed-term adminship myself...I don't see myself spending longer than two years in the role, tops, honestly. But again...we shall see. I'm in complete terra incognita now. Just waiting for the dragons to show up. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.21:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was a very stupid edit summary. Passers-by are likely to misconstrue it as racist. For myself, as I have already said, I think Indonesian schoolchildren are as bright as any others. DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your warm note of appreciation. I look forward to your non-racist edit summaries. I expect those highly intelligent Indonesian and Korean school kids, who are just passing by, are ripping up their Cornish primers in disgust, even as we speak. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC) I'm always careful to use an edit summary in case you think "what I'm saying is crap." [15][reply]
Note to self
Adoring crowds await Martin's return from Cythera.
I liked yoursigh.Sir John Tenniel's illustration of the Caterpillar for Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is noted for its ambiguous central figure, whose head can be viewed as being a human male's face with a pointed nose and pointy chin or being the head end of an actual caterpillar, with the first two right "true" legs visible. "And do you see its long nose and chin? At least, they look exactly like a nose and chin, that is don't they? But they really are two of its legs. You know a Caterpillar has got quantities of legs: you can see more of them, further down." Carroll, Lewis. The Nursery "Alice". Dover Publications (1966), p 27. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| —06:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have continued with this far too long; I appreciate your feelings have been ruffled, for which I am sorry. But I didn't get where I am today by waffling on about caterpillars. Take the afternoon off! "CJ" (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martinevans123,
When I watched the movie Independence Day this week, the line adapted from Dylan Thomas' poem jumped out at me. I felt it was clear. Jan Mair saw it that way and wrote about it. I think that the text in the article is clear that this is not a lengthy quotation, and it says "adapting Thomas' line", so readers should understand that it is derived. The Wikipedia standard for documentation does not require that the documentation be easily accessible. If you object, I will go gentle into that good night. Pete unseth (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm equally inept to all things technical. Having said that, I've never been one for stealing from a church, but in this case, I'm sure his reverence won't mind. I'll leave some money for the church roof fund or sweep the nave out or something. CassiantoTalk18:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly it was added to the MoS without discussion in 2013, but only to make the reference to Bill Clinton match his article, not as an intimation that this was correct style. This shouldn't be used to mandate the ludicrous addition of obvious nicknames and diminutives to full names in the lead. It has sadly become very common recently, but it makes the encyclopaedia look amateurish in the extreme. This is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Necrothesp. I had no idea. That's a very useful piece of information. I'm not sure if that's necessarily "amateurish" or merely "disdainfully pompous", but I'll await an outcome from that discussion. I see some have escaped. Maybe we'll be able to trim off a bit of the "lede fat" here and there, or will that be a red light for some? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think just because he has a beard, that I think he's Scottish (he wears a Cowboy hat, rather than a Tam o' shanter); one would think, judging from his name 'McHenry', that he's Scottish.Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat[reply]
Yes, in social psychology experiments anyway. Although it's not clear what an ethics committee would allow these days. I'm sure that your edit wasn't necessarily wrong, it does make it simpler for a non-specialist to understand, So I wasn't sure whether I should flag it up, or not! Hope you are well, Chillum. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You reinserted a section in Alan Titchmarsh entitled 'Controversy'. Are you aware that the BLP policy specifically states that section headers should be neutral? I am well aware that as an IP my edit would be flagged as section blanking. I just hoped that people wouldn't blindly undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.198.80 (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Had you considered trimming that section instead of deleting it wholsale? Or even of opening a thread to discuss at the article Talk Page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it seemed a storm in a teacup which didn't fit anywhere else in the article. Did you consider that you are reinserting something which is specifically warned against by the BLP policy? If you believe it is important then by all means try and work it into the article properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.198.80 (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you think it can be "worked into the article properly"? Perhaps the material, which concerns his comments about older women in the media, could be integrated into the chronological section on his career in television. Except that it's not really related to that, but arose from an Observer interview. But even that might be better than just deleting it wholesale. Your own view, that it was "a storm in a teacup", is not really relevant, but the public reaction, by such people as Miriam O'Reilly, is. And that passage is supported by three WP:RSs, so I don't see that it's really contentious. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have not explained how having a section entitled "Controversy" meets BLP. And just because something is in reliable sources doesn't mean it isn't undue weight (comments which provoked a riposte at the time but nothing since?) I'll go ahead and delete it again. Like I say, if you think it can be worked into the overall narrative and comply with BLP then fine. But at the moment it doesn't accord with policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.198.80 (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it could be worked into the article, I'd be very happy to see you do that, instead of mechanistically deleting it again just to prove a point. You can then accord it the weight you think it deserves. As you will see, it's no longer called "Controversy". I wonder had you ever considered creating a named account - that way your edits might attract less unwanted attention. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Can't believe it: this minute I responded to a post by you (Martin), mentioning a composer who wrote a Requiem in 40 languages (or was it 14?), and an opera Gogol, - article needs improvement, - keyword fearless[16]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"How many inkblots can you see in this frog?"Atlashörnchen aka "The Little Spanish Nibbler"Alas, Arbcom appears not to be quorate againHorde of unruly crazed socks rushing to vote at RfA?
Answering "yes" or "no" to the following questions, please be as truthful as possible:
"I sometimes make surreptitious wikipedia edits while I'm in the bath."
Thanks your your co-operation. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, Brain bot (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, all no. I dream of the day our founder takes to heart what I told him last year. (Remembered top of my talk. If changed, look on my user page for "flower", followed by "moral ambitiousness".) No more toxic personalities, no more banning, - imagine! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) No. 2) No. 3) No. 4) No. 5) No.
1) Not quite. Some, but not all. 2) No. 3) No. 4) No. 5) Yes.
Note: we are talking about wikipedia editors here, so they can't be expected to follow a simple set of clear instructions. Thanks, Brain bot (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm truly amazed that a big game hunter should have his own dental practice. Maybe he gets a lot of trouble with his teeth? Or perhaps hunting is his "mane job" and he's just "filling in" for the dentist? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mark Marathon (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your {{cn}} twice in the space of 8 days. I'm not sure that constitutes "edit warring". You opened a thread to discuss this at the Talk Page just five hours ago, threatening that I will be "reported for edit warring". And all because I suggest that the description of the synopsis of the song is supported by a common version of the lyrics already linked at the bottom of the article. I don't think you're being very reasonable. So your wish that I "have a nice day" rings rather hollow. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I almost admitted that you were my "mate", Gareth. But I don't think we are allowed to have those here. Maybe you can on Twitter? Removing "cn" tags twice has never been quite as painful in my 8 years here. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC) ... but only 8 years - that's hardly "a marathon", is it? Seems I don't have a leg to stand on.[reply]
Bore da. You might be interested in this DYK. First ever road I drove on without L plates the day after passing my test; I can recall my mum in the passenger seat scared that I was going to drive off the edge. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame no source covers it, but the persistence of the ice cream van is pretty legendary, I've been up that way in mid January and seen it. As all my relatives who lived in the Rhondda have either died or moved away, I haven't been there in ages but do take a nostalgic trip up there when I can. The sheep randomly roaming about the van is absolutely true! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well you know what they say, "in for a penny, in for £100,000"...."At a hotly contested auction the owner of Leakers Bakery snapped up the old public toilets in the East Street car park from under the noses of developers." But not sure "noses" is quite the right word there. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is no: Anyone caught wearing a watch will be executed with a 14.5mm ZPU-4 anti-aircraft gun, and the offending timepiece will be donated to the personal collection of Kim Jong-un. Sca (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you just love (some) Americans - keen to claim Oliver Sacks as 'one of theirs', but equally happy to deny that their own President is... :) JezGrove (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, just your friendly, neighborhood IP popping by!. I understand my own comments may of caused a stir (I am, well was, that IP in the thread - who has now withdrawn)...or perhaps even some "offence". Seriously, if my cousin ever rose above the ranks of a lowly graduate geologist working for BHP (well actually lowly sounds kinda insulting to describe someone who is Ba, Ma and PhD) and become notable enough to have his own wikipedia article - then I dare say there would be arguments over his nationality. Assuming of course his hypothetical rise to fame took place in another country - let us say the US...because that's where he's lived for the past 15 years. Perhaps there would even be an argument over his "Englishness"?! As he was born in Devon but raised in Cornwall. "XXXX is an English-born Cornish-American geologist". My god, what a laugh. Thankfully he is above such nonsense, but I thought it was fun anyhow. And the Obama stuff - That nonsense about his nationality is still as funny as it ever was - especially considering how many still like to doubt it. --109.149.122.179 (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something tells me you folks are Welsh. Well, riddle me this - I was on the North Cornish Coast this Sunday gone, climbing the dramatic heights of Dintagel, when I spotted on the horizon an island shimmering in the distance. Could this of been a Welsh Island? It seemed pretty far off the coast, but I have some doubts as my position was rather far west. Anyhow, I'm honored to be considered a genuine IP editor - is it a fad to be one? "no account, but I'm alright!". Ha. FYI, to make it clear I am a neutral, I made an edit to a little-known South Korean "born" girl group...--109.149.122.179 (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the 'Thanks' you sent - the whole Sacks-nationality thing certainly requires a sense of humour at times... (I seem to recall there was a very similar spat about the exact proportion of Liam Neeson's Irish/British/American-ness though oddly the US contingent lost interest after his remarks on gun control led to the arms industry threatening not to lend him any more of their toys for his next Taken sequel!) JezGrove (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes - hadn't scrolled down far enough to see 'The Man of Steel (Renationalisation)'! Guess there are some in Labour that would be happy for the Yanks to claim him... (Well, it worked for Ed and his big brother! Though Andy Burnham would have been a better fit for the outfit David left to work for in New York). JezGrove (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help in herding over there. Just spotted my unintended juxtaposition of 'sheep' and 'herding' in my contributions to this page – but as the woolly creatures heading for the Welsh uplands say to the hill-farmers, "please don’t take a fence". (God, that’s dire even by my standards.) JezGrove (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is it with today? Nothing but vandal reverts all day.... The sooner we get them all back in class, heads down and working hard to pass their exams, the better. I blame the parents. Mr. Hankey = Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hello. Sorry we seem to have been tripping over each other editing the page. I noticed you inserted an inflation adjusted valuation for the manor supposedly converting the then valuation of £11 to £10,000 now. I would suggest that this number is wrong! I am extraordinarily skeptical that the equivalent of what is now the annual wage for a poorly paid person would have been enough to buy this manor at that time.
Incidentally, the figure of £11 is that quoted by wessex archaeology in their writeup and is no doubt what the original document said. I was concerned, however, whether this was the sale value, or might possibly be an annual income valuation. Sandpiper (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sandpiper thanks for your message. Apologies for the edit conflicts. Yes, that value looked a bit low to me as well, so I've taken it out. Thanks for adding all that new material. I'm not sure that SM 27145 is really needed in the lede section. Maybe we could work it in later on, as the lede is meant to be a summary of the whole article? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning Martin and Sandpiper, I have just edited the Info' box to reflect its address. Although Chenies is in Buckinghamshire, Chenies village is in the WD3 postcode area, which is centered on Rickmansworth. Therefore its postal address is Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| —08:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)08:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dont have a problem about moving the reference number. There is more material to add yet and obviously the lead summarises the article contents, so rather has to be written last. I have changed it a bit because the information I added has rather contradicted what it used to say, about the current manner being built by the Cheyne family, whereas it is looking to be 'new' tudor work. From what I have read, this is not absolutley certain, but that would seem to be where the wessex archaeology/time team detective work has led. There is more to write up about phases of construction of the demolished north block, but it looks like this was the old house. I expect there will be a home for the ref number somewhere later, and it might have been nice if there was something more which might have been said in the lead about the earliest part of the house. Unfortunately it looks like all that is left is a basement.Sandpiper (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandpiper. I'm sure your diligent research will be of great benefit to the article. Martinevans123 (talk)
Section blanking
Hi Martin, a couple of sections I added to the page Brian Anderson (boxer) have been blanked twice this morning by editor Banderson1961 – this is the only page this user has edited, and the account wasn’t used before today. I know your Wikipedia experience is much greater than mine – would you mind taking a look at the page when you get the chance to see what you think? Very many thanks! JezGrove (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you are involved please find below a copy of the message I have sent to JezGrove:
Hi JezGrove - I'm sorry for the unauthorized editing yesterday. I really have little idea how to use this site. However the additional information you have added to Brian Anderson (boxer) is biased and without context. I don't know if it is your intention to be misleading but I just wanted to add some balance to the biography because I'm hoping that is the point of Wikipedia. I don't know if I have breached some convention as I am the subject of the page but if you are interested in writing a factual biography I would be more than happy to speak with you!Banderson1961 (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi again, Martin - thanks for your comment on the BA (boxer) talk page. I'm REALLY confused - am I dealing with two separate people both claiming to be BA now? Is there a way of checking? JezGrove (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to ask Mr Anderson if he's created a second account by mistake, or out of newbie ignorance. He's said a number of times that he has "no idea how Wikipedia works", so I'm guessing it's an oversight on his part. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but one of them has been responding to my posts on my talk page (you're very welcome to take a look, though it's a social desert over there) JezGrove (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If, after B(G)A’s eventual response, I’m left feeling a little mistreated is there anywhere I can take the issue? (I should have restricted my edits to saying that in the bad old days everything in prison was ‘orrible but that now it’s all ‘cushty’ – sadly, I just couldn’t find a reliable source!)
For once I’m totally serious (ouch!) – I really don’t want to be on the receiving end of accusations of bias when I’ve been polite and open to suggested revisions. (At least in my eyes - I appreciate that these things are subjective, but then that cuts both ways). I’m not going to be online much tomorrow (some new work has just come in, and I need to do the week’s shopping in the morning before I make a start on it –ah! the joys of ‘working from home’) but if B(G)A accuses me of bias again is there anywhere I can go to defend my (albeit unremarkable) reputation? JezGrove (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could go to AN/I. But that would be a bit like a snowball expecting to get a fair hearing somewhere on the West Coast. It's really just a content dispute. Believe me, it's rather obvious that you have nothing to answer in the bias department. BGA appears to be just a new editor who is keen to expunge anything from the article about himself that looks a little negative. User:Michig is the editor who created the article. I wonder what he has to say. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as I was in danger of forgetting it, good faith is always required - even when in short supply. I've now looked at User:Michig’s (very numerous) useful contributions and realised how totally unfair my last comment was – no disrespect was intended, and my apologies if any was taken. JezGrove (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear both I dont understand much of what is written here between you both it appears to be in some sort of code! Yes I am a new editor but Im not sure what the relevance is!.. Just for the record I have not requested that anything be removed from the page. I attempted to delete it originally only because I didn't know what else I could do. My requests have only ever been that more content should be added to provide more balance. I know I can't win this argument you have all the power. I find it interesting that someone who writes anonymously about others (JezGrove) is so easily offended. I wish you could experience, just for a day, what it feels like for me.
My best wishes to you both JezGrove and Martinevans123
Thanks for your message, Brian. Apologies, you're not the only one who has trouble understanding my rather convoluted Talk Page. It tends to be a small oasis on nonsense amidst the stark deserts of verifiable facts. I'm sure most of us never have to worry about article content reflecting poorly on us personally. And I see at the Talk Page that the editor who originally created the article, User:Michig, shares some of your concerns about balance. In my experience, Private Eye is happy to dig up whatever dirt it can on someone just to fill its columns. That doesn't mean it's not all true, but it may not all be appropriate for inclusion in a wikipedia article. Prisons only tend to get in the news when there is a problem. But I can assure that any "power" that JezGrove or I may seem to have here derives wholly from the application of wikipedia policies. There is no reason why you can't also soon become familiar with these and feel equally empowered. You might even want to edit other articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Martnevans123 - I'm Grateful for your time and advice
Kind Regards
Thanks Martin. I see that Liz II has become the Queen with the longest reign, but it could be a while before she becomes the Queen with the longest snow! Sincere apologies to you and CS Lewis (and Liz herself, of course!) for that royally dire attempt at humour JezGrove (talk)
I noticed the link you added to Dunnockshaw and Clowbridge, and while you have linked to the correct Whalley, that article doesn't mention the ancient parish so I'm going to revert. Quite a long time ago I started this User:Trappedinburnley/Whalley (ancient parish), but as I didn't know much about it I got a bit stuck. Since then (time permitting), I've been working through the relevant articles adding info on the related townships, with a view to eventually completing the new article. Any contributions you could make would be welcome.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
PS Are you aware of this? Wikipedia:GLAM/Clitheroe Castle Museum[reply]
Hi Trapped. Thanks so much for your friendly note. I'm must admit that I left that edit summary question mark just for you. I can see you've been very busy in your sandbox there and it looks very promising. I'll try and have a look. Thanks also for the castle link. I've been to Clitheroe a few times, but never to the castle. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a gem. Long before my time in fact, can only just remember seeing clips of him on TV. I'm pretty sure my father thought him a bumbling idiot, but I recall that my grandparents thought him "quite a card". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article you mentioned is about the general style of the folk idiom called the Hoedown. Many composers have drawn on this basic fiddle-based dance music for inspiration. One that comes to mind is Don Gillis, who I studied with in the 1970s.
Having lived with both the Nelson and the Copland for more that fifty years I can assure you that they are completely different pieces of music.JaneOlds (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin! I know in his early recordings Mr Costello / MacManus had a rather mumbled vocal delivery, but nevertheless I’m sure he expressed his feelings very clearly in his excellent song (I Don’t Want to Go To) Caersws! Having had a look at the page’s troubled editing history, I humbly suggest that if the locals REALLY want to stake their village’s claim to fame they’d be better doing so with: "It has one of the biggest clusters of IP editors of Wikipedia in Wales, or indeed the world"… (actually, maybe "one of the densest clusters" would be a more accurate description, on second thoughts! JezGrove (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fantastic - I didn't spot that one in my battered out-of-date Rough Guide to Wales! Oops, forgotten my wallet (again!) - you couldn't get them in, could you? JezGrove (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A editor has added an info-box which I have deleted as pointless (basically duplication of stuff in the lead). I am a fan of useful info-boxes (cricketers, politicians etc) but I think those that just duplicate the lead make Wikipedia look rather amateurish, and are unnecessary clutter. But if you disagree, I shall not object if you restore the IB. Pray ponder. Tim riley talk12:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We invent all these sports - you can't expect us to play them well, too! (Dragon's protruding tongue duly noted - but doubtless no more than we deserve.) JezGrove (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So THAT'S the secret - centuries of sneaky practice before we even stole the game from you, you scoundrels! I've often enjoyed a pint or two (I know, I know... but then I'm not a Rugby fan) of that particular brewery's wares but inevitably woken up the next morning "feeling (insert chicken-based cliché here!)" Anyway, congratulations on your victory - and good luck for the rest of the tournament. JezGrove (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the England side will wake up 'over the moon' with Samuel L Jackson's words of wisdom ringing in their ears. (And my apologies, that should have been 'clichéd chicken-based homophone' above, shouldn't it - my standards are slipping, which is worrying considering how low they started out...) JezGrove (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do. (Whilst trying to forget about passing under sleep's dark and silent gate.) I saw Clyde perform For a Dancer as a tribute to James Honeyman-Scott (who had died the day before) at a very wet Glastonbury in '82 - from one pretender to another, I guess. The weekend tickets cost a shocking £8 - they were gouging us even back then! BTW, my own rendition of Here Come Those Tears Again usually lives up to the name (but not in a good way, unfortunately) JezGrove (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you intend to restore Caipinheger? Normally if something goes unsourced, with source requested, for four years, it would be removed. WP:V says "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." This has been challenged, and there is no inline citation that directly supports the material. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a WP:RS, it should be restored. Who knows if that's four years of searching, or three years and 364 days of ignoring the tag? I guess you'll have formed a list of possible web candidates that fail WP:RS? Or have you just been thumbing through printed Portuguese cocktail recipe books? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I intended to restore it with a source. (I also mistook the tense of your question to be conditional future, instead of past). I've now added two sources, although I have to admit they don't look very impressive. Do you have an interest in Caipirinha, or are you just deleting claims that have been tagged for a long time? I don't see that these claims are particularly contentious or problematic, not that policy makes any distinction? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.svg)
.jpg)
_-_Glen_White.jpg)
1.JPG)
.jpg)
_(6041403346).jpg)
Hafspajen (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
![[15]](http://diarioandaluz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Humor_516583347_humor050.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](http://i.imgur.com/ShqeNdW.jpg){kind=link}
