User talk:Martinevans123

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Jump to bottom of page ↓
Rafael - Ressurreição de Cristo (detalhe - anjo).jpg

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)
Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 10:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
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[edit]

... 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?[edit]

"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[edit]

Enjoy (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?" (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[edit]

Editor of the week barnstar.svg 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}}
Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
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)
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 (de), 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)
@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)
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![edit]

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)

"He was worshipped in the ranks"[edit]

[3] Irondome (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Klaus Huber[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg On 6 October 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Klaus Huber, 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. Alex ShihTalk 08:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
All credit is due to Gerda, of course. Could I kindly request that notable people stop dying so regularly, as it creates too much work at ITNC. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
We share, of course, and I agree. - Worse than those dying and we notice are they whose article you created and you missed it on your watchlist when they died, and those who died and you noticed you should have written their article when they were alive. Look for Manfred Jung here. You see that I grab every chance to show the image of the woman who can't believe what she has to see, - we see Jung from behind, in the process of getting married to another woman, and not recognizing his first wife, nor remembering that he is married. Usually situations on WP are less dramatic, but at times her expression was mine, - see Götterdämmerung (and still not archived). - Less image but good expression : Love's Labour's Lost. - But not in Huber's case, - that was good collaboration as I like it. - I wonder what you say about the top image and its placement in the Bach composition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Still in the context: Wer weiß, wie nahe mir mein Ende, - who knows? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, Gerda. I can see Elmore James isn't lost on you. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you ;) - stats are impressive for Huber (9k+). Wish I could write him a better lead, - he's still "on". That hymn writer: look. Made me think of Hillbillyholiday's miniature find. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a very good result. More readers may get to discover and promote his musical legacy. It's good that Francis is always helping so much over there. I do miss Billy! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Clevor Trever.ogg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Clevor Trever.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"Also, it takes much longer to delete unused infobox parameters the slow way....". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Slim Whitman[edit]

Slim Whitman article, yes sorry that i didn't explain it better, it is not actually repetitive as his name was Ottis Dewey Whitman , but he was born as Otis Dewey Whitman, note the use of two "t"s in the name — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the opening sentence you have constructed is a bit clumsy:
Ottis Dewey "Slim" Whitman (January 20, 1923 – June 19, 2013), born as Otis Dewey Whitman, (note the one T in birth name) was an American country music and ..."
I'm also struggling to find a source for any of those names in the article. I've opened a thread at the Talk page over there. Please contribute your argument(s) there? This source says he was born "Ottis Dewey Whitman Jr". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


Reported: [4] Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Really User:Callanecc? How pathetic. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
My apology, having problems with diff2. Try this: 1 I think somebody is meddling with diff2! Jim1138 (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not sure I understand Martinevans123, I just removed reports which had already been addressed by an admin and had been there for 5+ hours (given the length of the page). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Callanecc: My apology, I, in adding a diff2 link (above), made an error which made you look like a bad guy. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
IP's blocked. I think I'll go hide under a rock for a bit. Jim1138 (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No worries. FYI I've blocked the IP and RevDel'd some of their edit summaries. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the update User:Jim1138. Thanks for your swift action User:Callanecc. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. what an outrage - I always wear trunks not y-fronts. And I've still got another 4,997 edits to do today....
User:Jim1138, please come out from under your rock. My explosive indignation didn't quite come out as intended, I do apologise. Thanks for your efforts over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Da Duh Dah.ogg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Da Duh Dah.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Your turn to guess, B-bot. I'll give you until 18:05 on 16 October, ok?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Explanation now kindly provided by User:Nihlus over at Template talk:Infobox musical artist. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. except this one looks like it had become a real orphan. Now fixed.

Clare Hollingworth[edit]

Your revert [5] was wrong.Xx236 (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Mistakes happen. Thanks for telling me. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


Hi there! You've wandered into a COI walled garden, where copyvio has been found flowering freely. Are you actually sure that that paragraph tells us anything of interest about Wagner or his lieder? And if not, why would we want it there? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I briefly passed through that particular walled garden on my way to that source from Cultural Center of the Philippines. If that in itself is a copyvio, by all means revert. Likewise with the YouTube video. Your very tempting edit summary just said "(unreferenced)"? I'd not argue that Ching's version "tells us anything of interest about Wagner or his lieder" any more than the version by Los Fabulosos Cadillacs y Debbie Harry tells us anything about a Liverpool orphan or his jam. It's just out there. -- Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

My gay porn[edit]

Is copyright-protected. So I can guarantee that it won't appear in any articles, living or deceased. (Another for the ever-expanding list of sentences I never thought I'd write. Also dear God what happens when my security clearance is up for review?)

Sorry for the late response - I've been piping down the valleys wild through Mississippi and Alabama. Currently preparing to kill mockingbirds in Monroeville tomorrow morning. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 07:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, how lovely. I hear you're a "major player". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
My milkshake brings all of Boise to the Yards, apparently. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 07:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Lol. I love a bit of clown porn, don't you? But let's leave Randy out of this, ok? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC) ...but I think all your edits are really tasty...
Ser Amantio, I looked up that we met in 2009, when I was brand new here ;) - Love your speaking role in the opera, pictured in the FA's synopsis image! - How do you (all) like my recent song, for the general topic of the Reformation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Very interesting, Gerda. But "von" here is "by"? "from"? - Google Translate of the article gives "Surrounded by"!! Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't listen to google translate ;) - follow link to a decent translation from the lead. "surrounded" translates the "umgeben". You are not "surrounded from" nor (7th stanza) "sheltered from" (actually that would mean almost the opposite) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
It's very nice, but I must admit I always preferred the one about how God is a festive burger. Or maybe that's just the hunger talking? Maybe we should ask Randy. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
There's a PR for the burger. Tell me if you like the lead image, and its position. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Ich bin ein Big Mac?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Berlin was last week, today is Tallinn --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Wow. Give my regards to Arvo. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Who is Gay Porn? Irondome (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
He's just your average Joe. But apparently he has three balls. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
oh I see Irondome (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
He - as we know - could rather be reached in Berlin, but Mailis Reps spoke in her dinner speech tonight about him. Can anybody tell me why she is correctly mentioned as minister of education and science but that doesn't show in her article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder did she dare to describe him as an Estonian?! I see the official Ministry webpage for Reps is a bit lacking. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
She said that he was born there (where we sat in the concert hall, - oh dear what a poor article), and described him as an Estonian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hoorah !! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Believe it or not: today, same place, concert beginning with Fratres, followed by BWV 202, and The Scottish. Who was there, and we chatted in German? Who came to the restaurant? the conductor. Two more signatures in my collection ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Gerda!! How amazing. I am green with envy. Glad that Arvo chose not to test your Estonian! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC) you'll be able to upload their signatures to their info boxes... (?)
no signatures of living people, - fraud possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Some folks' signatures can be quite odd. Happy Friday 13th! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. another genius there.
yes - it's already the 14th in Tallinn, - nite --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Nice image - but even if you don't want it there, there's no turning Bach, is there? And my God, just about anyone can have a music career these days. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah sure, I can dig it, man. These guys can really shift it up a gear, can't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
(dc) Nice image, but I don't want it there, you guessed right, because Bach and Luther talking to each other is so -- no words, and it looks like an article about a stained-glass window. No Bach, right (on the only one we have he looks 25 years too old), but it could be Luther as the hymn writer, as in other chorale cantatas, such as Wer nur den lieben Gott läßt walten, BWV 93, and it could be in the infobox, instead of above it.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Well I think that's a very attractive image, even if the composition is fanciful. Many article writers would be very jealous of such a strong and relevant image. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC) there's a prize for the first Luther pun, Ser Amantio!
I hear if Luther gets Bach to say his name backwards all the counterpoint in the world comes unraveled and we revert to Gregorian Chant. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hahaha. Great to see you're so switched on, Ser. But I'm somewhat suspicious of your motive. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Love it! - Back to the image. Can you imagine a 20th-century stained-glass window showing (small) Verdi conversing with Shakespeare as a lead image for Macbeth? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately yes, quite easily. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the guidelines about an image of {{infobox opera}} demand simply "An illustrative image. This can be the composer (preferably close to the time of the composition), a scene from the opera, a depiction of one or more of its characters, a singer depicted in one of the opera's roles, a poster, the title page or cover of the libretto, etc. Avoid images with a large vertical dimension in relation to their width, as this can make the infobox excessively long and interfere with the page layout." The imagined image would not be "of the composer" which assumes a contemporary image to present an easy identification of the style of a period, and none of the other recommended choices. Plus, it's extremely long, so even if it was a good image per topic, it should not be in the position, for page layout consideration. - Why an image that is irrelevant and against page layout, when there are relevant choices that go with layout clarity. Just because it's colourful? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Then I have to agree with you, 100% Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Please remember, when discussing my motives: keep it light, yeah? The image doesn't bother me, particularly, but I can see how it might be troublesome...does one really need an image there at all?--Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah ok, fret ye not Nicky. There's always hope. I'll try and keep things bright for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith that by "gay porn", you mean this. Honestly, what would vicar say. CassiantoTalk 20:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Deffo, dearie. I always had you down as a bit of a swinger. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Pannonian, Pannonica[edit]

It is not clear to everyone reading the article on Nika that Hungary and Pannonia are semiequivalent. The article then goes on to say there is a species member of lepidoptera named pannonica. We know that Pannonica aproximates Hungary but not everyone else reading it would. The article also refers to Rozsika as a baroness when she did not have that title until after she was married. The word Edle is a noble title but it is not as high in precedence as Baron. The titles Ritter and Edle are comparable with Baronet.RichardBond (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Richard. Thanks for your note here about Pannonica de Koenigswarter. I'm quite sure there are very many things that not "everyone" will know when reading any article. I must admit when I myself saw the sentence with "Eastern Europe's Pannonian plain", I didn't know exactly where the plain was. That deficiency was remedied by just clicking on the link. The earlier reference to her mother the "Hungarian baroness" then made sense. I just thought a geographical explanation inserted right there was unnecessary and a bit clumsy. I really don't think it adds to an understanding of Nica's personal life and doesn't add in general to a biog article like this. I think we can assume that if someone doesn't know something they will just click on a link - that's why we have them? But I'm quite happy to get other editor's views on the article Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Primal Scream and BLP sources[edit]

Hi Martin. I'm sorry I had to revert your addition there. We would need the very finest sources and a strong consensus to include that particular tidbit. Are you aware that WP:ARBBLP emphasises and clarifies not reverting at all for material that has been removed on BLP grounds? If not, you probably should be. --John (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Your edit summary was "unsourced". My addition?? That particular "tidbit" had been there for over 11 years. The source has simply stopped working - I updated it so that we could at least see where it came from. I'm not sure it's possible to make a BLP judgement without seeing the quality of the source? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hiding behind Admins[edit]

Running to that admin and having them place that boilerplate on my talk page, is hiding behind an admin, yes. You were unprepared to engage in a constructive discussion> Instead you simply started going: "Admin. Admin. Help. I need to scare this user off. They are doing something I don't like. I want to hide behind rules and frighten them off from changing precious edits." Give it up and grow your own backbone. Sport and politics (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the "constructive discussion" can continue apace over at Talk:Tim Loughton, despite your attempts to shut it down. I could do without the personal attacks, though. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
There is no point talking with you on the Tim Loughton talk page, you are engaging in distraction techniques, and little else. You originally claimed the source was unreliable, then claimed a single source was not good enough, then claimed BLP violations, and now are claiming the information is not notable/irrelevant. You are changing your position more times than a chameleon changes its colour. I am not going to fill up the Tim Loughton talk page with a pointless discussion of this kind. That is what turns of other users, and prevents constructive editing and discussions. Taking place. You are doing nothing but having a paddy and trying to squabble. Having a discussion with you is a load of hogwash and not worth the energy, unless the content and attitude of what you write changes. Sport and politics (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
When did I ever claim "BLP violations"? But if that single source is a tabloid, then no, I'm afraid it's not really good enough for a BLP article. And this Admin that I'm "hiding behind"? It's the one who reverted me immediately above? I'm sorry, but I'm not really up to trading personal insults just at the moment. I'm just trying to keep the Tim Loughton looking a little less like the gutter press. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Martin, sorry to crash in: Sport and politics, you are now at 2rr on this page. If you revert again I'll drag your arse to the notice board. Go to the talk page and discuss the matter rather than edit warring with multiple editors. Sorry Mr Evans, pray continue... CassiantoTalk 18:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto and Martin, you both are in exactly the same boat, as per WP:boomerang. You cannot hide behind the rules without them equally applying to yourselves. Simply being two of you does not diminish that revert rules apply equally. Sport and politics (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What about three? GMGtalk 18:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
So in order to stifle debate you elect to run to the drama boards, instead. How very pathetic of you. Unfortunatley, I've met your sort many times before. CassiantoTalk 18:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Wow. How dare you Cassianto, you petty stickler! Apparently you are engaged in "off line canvassing." Does that involve getting too tents? I've had enough and I'm off for a nice soak. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
A nice place to be with such impending clouds approaching. CassiantoTalk 18:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
You dismiss what seems to be merited accusations of off-site canvassing with sarcasm. This pompous little boys club is a cancer. I don't know how it'll end but I know the host and the cancer can't both survive. (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
How do I admit to something I haven't done? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Singora, how very nice to see you! I thought your cave had been flushed out ages ago... CassiantoTalk 19:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems that "discussion has turned sour". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Time to pull the plug on this one, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
get down!

Unusual death?[edit]

Hi there! I lurk on the List of unusual deaths, and I've noticed your reverting additions due to the source not calling them unusual. I was wondering - does it explicitly have to say 'unusual' for a death to qualify? A user added Rebecca Burger and was reverted for this reason, and indeed the source they used didn't say anything about the death being unusual.

I did, however, find this: It describes the death as a "freak accident," a "tragic, shocking incident," "rare," and "a rare and unfortunate event." With that source, do you think this death would qualify for inclusion?

Commotio cordis isn't TOO unusual by itself, but the root cause of it in this case strikes me as super weird. What do you think? NekoKatsun (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi NekoKatsun. The advice is, unfortunately, tucked away on the top of the Talk page. It says this:
"... the clear policy based consensus is to keep this list only to those deaths for whom there are reliable sources (as noted by one person, these need to be high quality sources, not tabloid journals who regularly fling around these words for fun) that the death is in someway exceptional. All other entries (those for whom someone might say "Come on, this is obviously strange") should be removed."
I'm sure we could all easily find reports of deaths which seem to be highly unusual, or even unique. I'd say "freak accident" would qualify. But, as many editors have pointed out in previous RfDs, there is some degree of subjective judgement involved. Many thanks for asking. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Ahhh, thanks much! In that case, what's your opinion on the source? I found it via the Commotio cordis page but to be perfectly honest, I'm behind a firewall right now and can only view a page cache - I can't really tell if it's reliable/quality enough for inclusion. NekoKatsun (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
As you said, it says "freak accident". And it look well reported, not really sensationalist. So I'd say yes. I do hope nobody is going to misread it and claim there have been 60 Million of these types of deaths! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Carles Puigdemont[edit]

That was not my edit, I just saw this was added and then removed, and thought this should be kept as done for previous Presidents. As for Puigdemont, yes, he's still in office as the Senate has not voted for Article 155 yet. Impru20 (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we crossed over, as I have also posted at your Talk page! Thanks for the clarification, Impru20. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


Too late – I've already been down that road. Sca (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Haha. Nice clip. Luminessence and Arbour Zena long time favourites. As is Officium etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Here's another of mine. – Sca (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Mmm, not heard that before. With Manu Katché and Kim Kashkashian. Wonderful stuff. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Sweet on the sax, isn't he? DYK that Garbarek is partly of Polish descent? Hence the un-Norwegian name. German Wiki sez he was influenced early on by John Coltrane. – Sca (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, it does say that. No surprise, I guess. Although no source, so maybe it's just an impression. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Sowas ist leider im deutschen Wiki nicht ungewöhnlich. Sca (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but they do try! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC) ... and have a few real pioneers [6]

File:Entartete musik poster.jpg As you may know, during WWII some anti-Nazi German youth groups were hot on jazz and swing – which were proscribed as entartete Kunst by Goebbels & Co. However, several Nazi bigwigs were secret jazz fans anyway. Sca (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I wonder, wonder who...who-oo-ooh, who wrote the book...[edit]

Pallas's long-tongued bat.jpg Batshit crazy
Every now and then, I wander over to the stage and have to wonder WTH? Occasionally I'll see your user name, and calm befalls me just knowing that we're all batshit crazy. Yay‼️ I'm not an outcast. 🤗
Atsme📞📧 20:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
stage is a euphemism for WP:Great Dismal Swamp, and how should we call where they requests arb cases? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Atsme, for those fine words of support and comfort. As Gerda nobly points out, all of Wikipedia (just like YouTube and Facebook) is in fact just a dysfunctional social media stage. We have to accept that, occasionally, things can get a bit ugly. But don't worry, we can all look forward to that very tasty "last syllabub of recorded potential AN/I sanctions". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
If you need comfort and support on the grandest scale, try the chorale symphony setting of rejoicing and thanks which we sang last Sunday (pictured) and which still rotates in my mind, after almost a week. What do you think of the battle cry? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
"Ich Bin Ein feste Burger"?.... Am Lovin' It, already. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Our first movement is on YouTube (in the article, - 2016 version). The battle cry is no article, did you see? Was one, but only for a few minutes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Still searching for you on YT, Gerda. It's in the article!? So what happened? You lost your place in some main page queue, again? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC) wow ... an archlute
St. Martin's Day today, - have a happy one. Martin L. was baptised that day. He wrote a hymn which was not "A mighty fortress", so created an article on Ein feste Burg, on 31 October, naturally. See if you can find it ;) - It's quoted in our choir's star piece, YouTube at the bottom. The good singers always stand last row in a choir, DYK, but that choir has only good ones! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll have fun searching. Martinevans123 (talk)
Seems to be plenty ;) - What did you find, looking for Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott? Something like the article created in 2005? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Um, yes. Have I been misled? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes? An IP created Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (not "A mighty fortress") in 2005. Where is that now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Do you still enjoy searching? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Am now quite keen to be put out of my misery. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Instead: I give you something to read, Gloria! - What do you see on the talk of the mighty fortress? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you here to build an encyclopaedia?[edit]

It defies belief that someone would look at the text I removed and think that the best thing to do with it was put it straight back. If something which purports to be a serious encyclopaedia has an article about a major topic which starts with the text "Firefighters rescued 65 people." and claims that this is an "overview", then it has failed disastrously in its mission. Anyone who cannot perceive the problem with such text cannot be here to build an encyclopaedia. But you restored this woeful content a mere three minutes after I removed it. Do you believe you were making the article better? Do you realise you made it much worse? Or do you simply not care about article quality? (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"Are you here to destroy an encyclopaedia?" There is a new discussion thread at Talk:Grenfell Tower fire. Perhaps it would be more productive to argue your case over there? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be more productive if you could distinguish between encyclopaedic writing and absolute shit, and not put the latter into articles. (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Could you explain, at the Talk:Grenfell Tower fire why you think the current overview is "absolute shit"? That way more of the regular editors to the article are likely to see your convincing arguments as to why it should be removed wholesale, instead of just being trimmed or improved in other ways. Thanks so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
It is obvious that it is absolute shit to anyone with the remotest idea of what a good encyclopaedia article looks like. You must be trolling here. Hope it's fun for you. (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not obvious to me. If you are that concerned I am "a troll", I guess you could take raise the matter at WP:AN/I? Not so much "fun" over there maybe, but it's your privilege if you need to exercise it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • IP was in the wrong here, of course, but I must say that this is a rather amusing distillation of the MoS. Eman235/talk 20:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Strictly Come Dancing (series 15)[edit]

RE this: Hi NaThang0P, re your recent edit here, I wonder could you tell me if that table meant to include the scores from Week 5 or not? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. It seemed to include the W5 scores (Joe's Paso Doble and Jonnie's Quickstep) that were adjusted to the 40 point scale. So I don't know.NaThang0P (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not clear is it. It's just a bit odd that some of those scores don't appear in the corresponding week's table. Perhaps a note could be added for those two? Perhaps it doesn't matter. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


In regards to Carles Puigdemont he left the country so he could not be prosecuted witch means he is in exile so I don’t need a sorce for that the sorce is already their Colored (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no strong views either way, but I think we certainly do need a source. That's your personal conclusion and opinion. But if you want to avoid sanctions you'll need to stop edit warring and discuss at the Talk page. You have passed WP:3RR by now? Please read that policy and take it on board. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

North Wales Weekly News[edit]

Hi Martin, I’ve just created a very brief 'History' section over at the (rather dusty) North Wales Weekly News article but then noticed that its current image is from the Carnarvon and Denbigh Herald, which seems to pre-date it. I can’t see any link between them – do you know if there is one, or was the image added in error? Thanks as always! JezGrove (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jez. As you know, that's the wrong end of Wales for me! It looks like the Caernarfon Herald and the Denbighshire Visitor were both sister papers for the NWWN. But that's really not the best image for that article, is it. There is an image here, which I am guessing is copyright free? But it's pretty low quality. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks Martin, the quality isn't great but it's an improvement in terms of the article - I'll try to sort it out later. JezGrove (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, I'm not sure it would be! It's possible to just make out the tit;le, but little else, not even the date, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
In that case I'll leave well alone and let another editor with a deeper interest deal with it. (Possibly puts me in a minority here on WP.) JezGrove (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
No way! I know you are a real trail-blazer! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Last time I blazed anything in North Wales it was an electric kettle on a ceramic hob (don't try this at home, as they say). But do you reckon the launch of NWWN blazed its own trail worthy of inclusion in 1889 in Wales? (Prince Albert Edward made it in there just by not dying...) JezGrove (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
But of course, almost as shocking as: "June - A lion escapes from a travelling menagerie at Llandrindod Wells."[1] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Weekly News and Visitors’ Chronicle for Colwyn Bay, Colwyn, Llandrillo, Conway, Deganway and Neighbourhood duly added – I was half-surprised that Neil Kinnock wasn’t credited with the title before realising that was totally unfair and it was mainly a Victorian thing – after all, Dickens never used 10 words if 50 would do…! JezGrove (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Weather getting a bit breezy, is it. look you? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I wonder where we'd be now if he had won in 1992? JezGrove (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Living in a Socialist Dream, no doubt. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Doubtless you can't avoid fate and we'd still be living in a land of Confusion (with the only signs of paradise being its daily appearance in the papers...). JezGrove (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
and not just, ... sadly I feel it's all over now. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Clay, Jeremy (2014-04-19). "Victorian strangeness: The tale of the lion and the spa break". BBC. Retrieved 2014-04-19. 

A Newcastle for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png LOL! re: entomology/etymology DonQuixote (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't look like Newkie Brown to me... JezGrove (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Did someone say Newquay Brown?? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I so want to try to say something along the lines of "Why Arr Man" but I don't think I can make it work. Tsk. DBaK (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Newcastle Pirates, anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Call of Rashy Duty[edit]

Hello Mr Evans and thank you for the amusing interaction this morning. On CoD I would just like to say: I wish. What I am actually doing is adding a fanfare and outro to an arrangement for Y6 brass players of the Boar's Head Carol. I may live to regret this, and it is possible that Call Of Duty might sound better than my efforts. Boom. Ho hum: the kids will help to improve it. Rashistically, thank you for the very useful list and I was moved to see that Stephen I, Count of Burgundy shared his father's nickname "the Rash", this being I feel clear evidence that William I, Count of Burgundy was a bit of a New Dad and took his fair share of the nappy changing. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha. I'm just pleased that we have an article on this icon. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Good Lord. I didn't know ... and now I do! That's encyclopaediaism for you. :) Thanks. DBaK (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Rolf Harris[edit]

(was almost briefly discussed here, it seems).

Lol, sorry. I got confused, happens a lot. Hope I didnt offendSimply-the-truth (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I got all excited there, anticipating some right rollicking classical propositional logic. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Mate, your talk page is sooooo long, think I may be doing actual exercise with all the scrolling! And sorry that I couldnt help you with that thing you mentioned, cant even type it, never mind understand it!Simply-the-truth (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, just tried to read just the lead, literally have no clue!! lolSimply-the-truth (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You can jump from the top, you know. If you dare. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, seen that now! Saves a lot of timeSimply-the-truth (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A US holiday greeting![edit]

Want more yams?
No thanks, I'm stuffed.

Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
A Thanksgiving tale...

Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns).
The second pilgrim queries, “Why two blunderbusses?”
The first pilgrim responds, “I usually miss on the first shot; with two I can shoot again”.
The second pilgrim pauses, then asks, “Why not just take the second one, and only shoot once?”

Atsme📞📧 02:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that tasty pilgrim treat. Bernard sends his kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC) I guess it's probably Finger Lickin' Good in an inclusive Meleagris gallopavo kinda way... [8]
It's Foghorn Leghorn, I say, I say...[9]. Psst...Brecker Bros sound a little like the BeeGees. *lol* Atsme📞📧 19:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Haha. Now ah-say, ah-say, ah-say, just hold on, just a lil minute, there!! I love a bit of jive now and then. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Wales vs New Zealand[edit]

Half time : 11 - 12 !!!

Full time : 18 - 33 - oh well, let's savour the first half!

TRM questions[edit]

I've WP:BOLDly removed your questions on TRM's page, as we're well into the voting period now. While it doesn't officially say that the question period closes when the voting starts, it seems fair not to leave unanswered questions to confuse people about whether he ignored them or not. Feel free to revert if you disagree. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, so easy to get distracted isn't it? "Voting is now open to eligible editors until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017". Yes, that is very bold of you - is this a joke? Very sorry that I did not think of any questions for yourself before you withdrew. In previous years I have asked questions on the very day that the election was due to close and often received very good answers. I feel cheated and disappointed. Your move is wholly undemocratic. Either TRM is a genuine candidate or he's not, I guess. I'll certainly revert you for at least the next twelve days. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
p.s. when the Candidates/Questions pages clearly state "Questions may no longer be submitted", that's when folks shouldn't ask any more. If you think that guillotine should happen hours, days or even weeks before voting closes, then you'll need to suggest that? Thanks.

Thought of you ...[edit]

... when I read that Catherine Foster was the first English Brünnhilde in Bayreuth. True, and misleading. There was a Welsh one, or two. I know only one. - Anyway, quite a story, my 100th woman bio since I joined Women in Red. I heard her in Götterdämmerung. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well done, Gerda! I'm secretly hoping to get engaged to that luscious babe Meghan Merkel. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Evans you are incorrigible!! DBaK (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Angie Baby can climb into the back of my Brexit Tour Bus anytime she likes :) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC) p.s. have I earned my Women in Red badge yet??
The Welsh soprano sang Brünnhilde in white, like a bird with broken wings. Foster had to wear some party dress from the 1960s in two colours for her wedding, but was in black in the end. The Gibichungen hall was red, though, and the fire projection. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Well yes, sounds very dramatic. But this one hard to beat. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I know, I saw her on the Bayreuth stage, perhaps the greatest day at the opera in my life. - This was also impressive, and the critic heard the very same performance as I ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Wow! Absolutely wonderful. Sound quality is top notch on this. What a choir. Thanks so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
blushing: the piece was part of a DYK today, and then was made FA, - that hasn't happened to me before! The choir: I am the one and only person who took part in every single project. Not even the conductor did, because he had to miss the Christmas Oratorio that his colleague conducted (the one with the bare-breasted Mary on the poster) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Truly wonderful, Gerda! Thank you for the link. I have added it to my bookmark list. Hi Martin! Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 10:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you Martin. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 11:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Other music, the old tune[edit]

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[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
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[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg 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[edit]

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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  13:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Y'all know who to vote for, folks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

James Watt[edit]

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!!!![edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  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[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg 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"[edit]

Barnstar of Humour.svg The Barnstar of Good Humor
For an increasingly refined and judicious stream of talk-page levity.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  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[edit]

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. (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.[edit]

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'[edit]

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): [10]. 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...."[edit]

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![edit]

Johansen Viggo - Radosne Boże Narodzenie.jpg 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! Face-smile.svg  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings[edit]

The Great White North.jpg 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[edit]

Snow flake.svg 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[edit]

Snow flake (Unsplash).jpg 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: [11] 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...[edit]

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![edit]

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% Face-grin.svg, 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[edit]

  Claude Monet - The Magpie - Google Art Project.jpg 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. Face-smile.svg Thank you! Good to hear from my pal, Mehefinheulog. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 20:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Christmas greeting[edit]

Hannah Cohoon, Tree of Life or Blazaing Tree, 1845.jpg 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 NicolaoChe 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 NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

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) [12]

Merry Christmas![edit]

I feel doubly blessed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Whoops sorry!, Well two's better than one! Face-tongue.svg. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and back at you![edit]

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[edit]

There's a star over, er, Sweden...
To Martin
Season's greetings
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.[edit]

Hogmanay supermarket booze.jpg 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[edit]

Hello, Martinevans123.
AfC submissions
Random submission
Severely backlogged
2328 pending submissions
Purge 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 ...[edit]

[13] 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[edit]

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, [14]. 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...[edit]

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 \S/ so (hopefully) I won't have to interrupt the busy schedules of others in the future.ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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

Precious five years![edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
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[edit]

? Uhm... If you would like to nominate me here : [15]. 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[edit]

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[edit]

I am well known to the SG team and the edits are true. Please source your changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RushDiggity (talkcontribs) 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: 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... [16]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png 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,[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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


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[edit]

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."

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[edit]


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? (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[edit]

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[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg 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![edit]

May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending! Face-smile.svg  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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


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)


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!!

" alabaster gnome..."[edit]

"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[edit]

Blimey! It can get a bit hot up in Islington it seems!!
Updated DYK query.svg 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[edit]

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?? ....


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[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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![edit]

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

Belated Christmas greeting[edit]

FatherChristmastrial.jpg 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[edit]

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"!)[edit]

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)

  • 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., 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) [17]
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. (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[edit]

Rafael - Ressurreição de Cristo (detalhe - anjo).jpg

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[edit]

Cherry crashing into primordial Earth2.png
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) [18]
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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

(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[edit]

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. (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! (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. (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, (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. (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. (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)


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)
  • 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)
  • 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. –Davey2010Talk 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 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 GMGtalk 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)
  • 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)
  • 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[edit]

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 Hidden Valley, Negev, February 2018.jpg
the desert is a good place for introspection
Miriam Makeba
Miriam makeba 01.jpg
(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)
  • 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"?


Barnstar of Diligence.png 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

Dammvippa.jpg 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 ... e.g. try The Key (Ebb, Magenta, Jacques Larue (fr)) 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."