Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs

War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

For reference:

• Wikipedia:Copyright violations
• Wikipedia:Plagiarism
• Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources
• Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing
• Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

At least 51 people, including a six-year-old boy, attending a funeral wake, killed in a missile attack...

Oleh Synyehubov, Governor of Kharkiv Oblast: "It was the bloodiest crime committed by the Russians in the Kharkiv region since the start of the full-scale invasion. Three days, from October 6 to 8, will be declared days of mourning in the Kharkiv region."

Mr Putin: "No-one in the world in their right mind would use nuclear weapons against Russia". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October songs

my story today

My story today is sad but great. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Ah yes, Filharmonie Brno, I see. Looks a wonderful occasion. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was in 2002, though, with a magnificent chorus from Biscay, but I missed both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, 2002. Thanks, Gerda! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Orfeón Donostiarra looks very interesting. novel staging![reply]

Oh yes! - A few more pics, and see my talk for what we sang today (I'm the woman in red), and what Tabea Zimmermann played (today's story on her birthday): I heard it, and it's on YouTube. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suscepit Israel --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luke 1:53: Bogna Bartosz (2010), Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra & Choir with Ton Koopman. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [1] p.s. their "Et misericordia" is also wonderful Luke 1:50[reply]

[2]] but we did it with the women's voices of the choir --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks; I see that one has Julia Doyle and Hana Blažíková (sopranos) and Maarten Engeltjes (alto). I can imagine your version was wonderful. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, and yes it was. - What a composition: that Protestant composer quoting the Gregorian chant in the oboe! - Did I tell you (probably yes) that out Idstein conductor once asked Blažíková to step in for the Mass in B minor, and she didn't say no? But her calendar said no, and we had Gabriela Eibenová fly in, as her DYK reports. And the Magnificat conductor (who flew in from the US, and her husband even sang in the choir) talked to her after the performance! Small world. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

more pics, and today's story is on a birthday, and the real DYK was already on that birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda. "Back in 2001, researchers from the University of Leicester published their ‘Moosic Study’, which found that dairy cows produce more milk when listening to relaxing classical tunes." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Gerda Arendt#Music keeps track of "my" moosic and memories, and just today I have a juxtaposition of music performed by the two church choirs in town, one I sang in and one where I listened, to music about love, evening and night. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lovely record there. Sorry to hear of the passing of Carla Bley. But life... goes on: Here with the wonderful Andy Sheppard and Steve Swallow. A real slow groove. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, really goes on! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's only 6 minutes! 😂 Martinevans123 (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

heavenly 6 minutes - today, it's a place that inspired me, musings if you have time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ARoseWolf so eloquent. Wholly agree! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love it! Could you write that on my talk, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! A Romanian woman composer is today's topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And today it's about a couple - found the cute image only yesterday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A French woman today with a small body and a great voice whose portrayal of a role with different aspects I enjoyed! And another interesting composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, like another little songbird. Many thanks for the links, Gerda! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of Brian Bouldton today, and his ways to compromise. - I'm on vacation again, more pics to come, but too tired after church (pictured on my talk), hiking and paella. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a very helpful person, greatly missed. Here's Percy Grainger playing his "Molly on the Shore" in 1937. A birthday gift for his mother. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC) ... and here's one in a sandwich by Green Fields of America.[reply]

that Tessie O'Shea was born on Plantagenet Street, Riverside, Cardiff, a rather dodgy boulevard on which I myself once lived. The things one learns on here. KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No 61, apparently. Perhaps even more dodgy in 1913? I guess she'd be two metric tonnes these days. I'll have you know that I once met Wyn Calvin and got his autograph! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC) How are you with banjolele these days?[reply]

p.s. feel free to have a rest while I try and catch up with your last 49 edits at the CCI! phew! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, any thoughts on Talk:Jimmy_Savile#The_Reckoning being broadcast on the moment? I'm not even going to start listing the minor inaccuracies because it is a TV drama, but the two mentioned here need to be addressed somewhere. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor inaccuracies!? How very-luxury-tower-block-penthouse-dare you. Luckily I've not seen Episode 2 yet. Still shuddering from Episode 1. I'll have you know that this is wholesome family entertainment, carefully crafted by ITV so as not to overly self-embarrass the BBC. I don't recall that particular episode of Songs of Praise, but the Daily Express tells us that it was at Calder High School, for Christmas 1969, (and that he gave his £50 fee straight to cheridee)? I think Coogan has done an incredible job, with both voice and looks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although The Reckoning is not as long as Barbenheimer, I can now boast that I have watched all four episodes on iPlayer. Steve Coogan's vocal impression of Savile is quite uncanny, close your eyes and you could be listening to the real thing. I do think, however, that The Reckoning lays it on with a trowel and contains a lot of historical hindsight designed to make Savile look as bad as possible. We can't write history backwards, which is pretty much what The Reckoning tries to do at all times.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A week is a long time in Top of the Pops", as our Harold never said. And the rest is history written backwards. Yes, the voice is disturbingly accurate. Strong supporting cast, I thought, especially Gemma Jones as Agnes and Mark Lewis Jones as Hulligan. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for your with the National Trust 2022 pilot. Based on that work, the National Trust is supporting a second pilot, and some information is here WP:GLAM/National Trust. All the best Lajmmoore (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the news, Lajmmoore. I'm big fan of the National Trust guidebooks. Too big a fan, some might say. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello old thing! How are you doing? I'm a bit Largely-Absent™ at the moment but was well chuffed, comme on dit, to see that you are back. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ey Up Me Duck. Oui, naturellement, mon brave! ... back to wiki reality? Just for the glam, like. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [3] p.s. I'm probably just fine, thanks.[reply]

I'm very glad (and relieved) to see you back. Happy day. Anna (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anna. Thank you so much. You are always so positive and polite. ... any excuse!! 😊 Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November songs

story · music

Hevenu shalom aleichem is my story today. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly missed by some today, for his most significant achievement. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC) 'Cause out on the edge of darkness[reply]

I am quite proud that the hook - not by me, but 4meter4 who wrote the serious part of the article - mentioned that achievement. I had reason to look at our conversations about The Rite of Spring today, - interesting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A nice hook; he deserves to be remembered. We haven't seen User:Ruhrfisch around for a while. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added some images from Aachen, taken 21 Oct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. Some beautiful images! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, more to come, but article writing and reviewing first, and hopefully resisting the temptation to argue on a noticeboard ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now a few more from the trip. - My story today is about my song of defiance, - it was a great pleasure to hear it performed today! The line "Ich steh hier und singe" (I stand here and sing) is in the movement with the music pictured, which begins with "Trotz -- Trotz -- Trotz", sounding much tougher than "defiance" ;) - in this YouTube it's at 4:55. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda. A great rendition. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! - Want to help (refs, detail) with (Welsh) Ryland Davies? Same recording as my recent Isabelle Sals, you can plunder there ;) - I'll look at him tomorrow, just nominated today's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What should I think of this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks convincing. They certainly ought to know about him being "Professor of the “Alfredo Kraus” Fundación Ramón Areces Voice Chair at the Reina Sofía School of Music, where he had previously offered masterclasses." There's also this obituary which I have added as a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC) p.s. Blaenau Gwent was created only in 1974. In 1943 Cwm was still in Monmouthshire. [reply]

Can you perhaps add from it? And perhaps solve the riddle how he made his debut in Glyndebourne as Almaviva, when there's nothing of that in the Glyndebourne archives (that I just added), which see him in the chorus that year, and Rossini's work not once in his impressive singing there from 1965 to 2001? He needs more lead. I trust that we'll make him fit for the Main page, where I have Lea Ackermann right now, and a DYK and an OTD entry ;) - I couldn't avoid that notice board, first couldn't take misrepresentations any longer, secondly pinged. Such a waste of time. Whoever still "fight" infobox wars, missed some history. Bach and the Schumanns (on the Main page) all have an infobox, Clara even from 2012, - they really came to be the normal accepted thing to have. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a slight riddle. Perhaps we should add only material supported by more than one source? A image of Davies might be preferable to an infobox for such a short article, although we are unlikely to find one, I suspect. What is "the normal accepted thing to have" on Wikipedia is still a bit of a riddle for me, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have several sources for that Almaviva because they copy from each other (and from Wikipedia), but I'm tempted to drop it as not in sync with the rest of the bio, - unless that was something like a student performance, outside the festival. He'll have an infobox, really no problem for opera singers (did you know that the recommendation "better without" was officially removed from the guidelines in 2019?), and I bet Storye book will find at least a fair-use pic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it could be dropped. And I did not know that! ... so box away, I guess. I do hope Storye book can find one. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will. - I looked again, and thanks for the parents, but the source given supports only his marriage. For ITN, everything must be sourced. I can't read the Times obit, - can you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that was a simple explanation, the writer of his obit was the same person (last year) as now his. Happy to have found his! So nice stories, such as the cognac for Caballé, - I hope readers will get to it. Do you think the Times obit (that I can't see) is the same as in The Guardian? Anyway, only recordings missing, then I'll nominate. I'm always reluctant when I have someone "on" who will be pushed out by the next. We have a few days left, 12 Nov would be last day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you found it! No, I can no longer read The Times. User:AirshipJungleman29 tells me there is a clever trick one can do with archive versions, but I'm not sure how that's done... It seems both Barry Millington in The Grauniad and whoever it is in The Times have used the same 2003 photo of Davies as Monostatos as their lead image. I think the lower b/w image of Davies during a rehearsal at Leeds Town Hall in the 1970s, by Jeremy Fletcher/Redferns, is particularly good. Yes, it's somehat difficult to ever know how an RD entry will last at ITN! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is fine, no need for anything else, - I just wondered. "somehat" is a lovely word! The shortest RD was 5 hours (not mine or I'd have protested), the longest I remember the recent Zdeněk Mácal, a full week. Lea Ackermann has two days now, and I wish her more ;) - She has attracted 10k+ readers yesterday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I invented that one specially for the occasion. I'm so glad, Gerda, that someone round here knows the Queen's English. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad someone knows the language to expand the sad cy stub ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks to Deb, it's a start. My Welsh is much worse than my English. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I have to use the translation function to help me along. But I'm better than I used to be. Frankly, I couldn't converse in Welsh with any fluency if it hadn't been for cy helping me along. Why don't we see you there, Martin? Deb (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too busy checking hundreds of English edits for possible copyright violation, for my sins. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not work, it's just practice (makes perfect). --ARoseWolf 12:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Day! A day to remember the victims of wars, and for me St. Martin's day, matched as short as I could in a 2010 DYK remembered, - so basically about sharing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I began another day of vacation pics, with the deepest blue of the sea ;) - we celebrate the birthday of a friend who wrote quite a book about the compositions of a man who will turn 300 soon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I knew very little about Carl Friedrich Abel. Thanks for the link. Here's Petr Wagner with an arpeggio for solo viola da gamba in 2008. Quite breathtaking playing. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [4] wonderful sound recording[reply]

Thank you! - Next day begun --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... and completed - today my topic is a soprano, with yt. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations (belatedly) Gerda, for Rachel Yakar, a great-looking article. Nice clip too, thankyou! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! If you like to watch, there are several more on yt from that film. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My story today, Canticle I: My beloved is mine and I am his, - the composer, born OTD 110 years ago, didn't want it shorter (but the publisher), more here. I'm back to a good tradition: a Britten composition on his birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Gerda. It was Blue for Benjamin day today! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My system sees a security problem with the link, sorry. - 10 years ago, I made {{Benjamin Britten}} for his centenary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How very odd. It is https. Congrats for 10 years ago! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the 3 yt for Canticle I speaks to you most? - What a story! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk:Gerda Arendt#Mozart Requiem --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, Gerda! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today: in memoriam Jerome Kohl who said (In Freundschaft): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. Yes, a great band! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Portskewett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hardwick.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, DPL, for your latest gos. But that's the only page that seems useful there. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good job we can trust these Admin types. That's the last time I ever make a pilgrimage to take the grotto cure. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not like our admin's are from the gods or anything. Wait you take pilgrimages? Is that like an annual salmon run? Those can be fun, for the bears, like tourist season for the local shop's where I used to live. For the local non-shop owners, however, it can be quite unbearable. --ARoseWolf 12:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. "As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods: They indef us for their sport." -- Johnny Bunions 123 (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Not in the mood. I liked what I saw of Wifione. I liked what I saw of Lourdes. I saw too little obviously. Music to be had at Rossini's talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually, Lourdes seemed really helpful. Am thinking of turning this Talk page into a help-centre for disgraced Admins. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I sign up for that even though I'm not an admin? I am perceived to be the blacksheep of the family. --ARoseWolf 14:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drink to that! But obvs, the choice is yours... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MonarchOfTerror. --Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Great work updating the article! Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 20:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, boyo. According to James, Sean and Nicky, libraries gave us power.... [5]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the Glyndebourne section by many famous colleagues, directors and conductors. On a train ride yesterday, I had time to read the Duffie interview completely: enjoyable! Could you add more from that to the article? Especially those things taken from it to the Millington obit? I also had the chance - different IP - to see a bit more of The Times: it's different but nothing special. I'll turn to recordings. 9,4k+ views yesterday: let's entertain them. He will be good for GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will try and have a look. Yes, it's a good interview. Thanks for clarifying about The Times. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Four recordings, need food before the next ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added Le Duc in Massenet's Chérubin, with the quote, also at Covent Garden in 1994, and Podestà in La finta giardiniera. Montserrat Caballé and the cognac is a great story. As is the 1983 opening night of Otello in San Francisco with Margaret Price, Silvano Carolli, and Marek Janowski in the Bruce Duffie 1998 Chicago radio interview. Here he is in Donizetti's Lucia di Lammermoor at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden with Richard Bonynge in 1972. Truly wonderful stuff! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - The cognac story is already in Caballé's article but for him, after DYK please or they will want nothing than that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly be a strong contender! Probably a slam dunk... Millington mentions his "vocal breakdown that occurred in the early 1980s". I'm not sure if that should be included, or where, or how. He describes it himself in the Duffie interview: "... having had such a big bite of those lovely roles I did for twenty-six years, ... It's that sort of business." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we don't need to be more explicit than we already are, - with years without performances and several "later he returned". - I found a nice obit by Cooper, added, which would be good for more recordings. Too tired now, perhaps tomorrow, when I also plan to get the references away from the text and nominate for GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks useful. Mentions also ".. the Shepherd in Tristan und Isolde", although not sure when that was. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... the smallest of the small roles ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just 20 lines in two scenes, it seems. Perhaps too small to be worth any mention. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constructed very quickly, by a Mr R Sunak of Westminster, this charming period piece wins this week's glittering Restoration Award on The Slightly Repaired Shop. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Martin! Not sure if you have watch-listed Google Glass, so I thought I would send you this example of how I would re-work this content to make it more copyright compliant. Diff of Google Glass — Diannaa (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa. Thanks very much, that's a great improvement and a very good example. I was slightly unsure if it was a smartphone or just a "smartphone-based messaging interface". I'd have to check beyond the abstract on the details. Maybe you've already been able to do that. Either way I guess, a smartphone was used. That article was not on my watchlist, but I came across it because of KJP1's continued efforts at the CCI.^[a] It seems to be largely a one-person task for him at the moment. Thank you again for the very useful re-write. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a nice summary of the journal article at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0018720814555723 which is what I used to do my re-write. Based on the info in that summary, my feeling was that "smartphone-based messaging interface" was just a pretentious way of saying "sent a text message using a smartphone". — Diannaa (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I understood "passive cost" to mean that the simple fact that the device is in place on one's face causes a certain amount of distraction. — Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the Abstract that's available to any reader via the reference. Scientific abstracts are generally freely available to anyone at no cost and without any institutional affiliation. I'd agree about the meaning of "passive cost". But I'm not sure that Ben Sawyer, Associate Professor at the University of Central Florida, or his associates at Wright Patterson are necessarily being "pretentious" lol. If it was simply a smartphone, it would have been a hand-held device and that may have imposed a further cognitive cost on the driving task. I also wasn't sure of the message modality - was it text, or voice, or a combination of both? I guess such details might not matter for the purposes of the Google Glass article? I can get access to Human Factors, but I don't have it on a continuous basis. Thanks again for the edit and for your friendly and encouraging message here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's time for another entrant in our current round of unelected PMs, and as we've mentioned before, your CV fits the bill. You have exactly the right amount of hands-on governmental experience and glib self-assurance. We're slotting you in in mid-December, when everyone is distracted by the holidays, for a run of, well, maybe a year or so if past trends hold. England Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty. Signed, Charles Rex

[Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)][reply]

Cheers Chazza, me ol' china. Yes, it's nearly the most wonderful time of the Parliamentary Year, again. And it's beginning to look a lot like recess! Soon time to break out those go to Seasonal treats..... over-cooked Brussels Sprouts, the kangaroo anus and, of course, pigs in blankets. Yum!! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, here in the colonies, all we get are two servings of old and spoiled leftovers. But anyway Martin, you have my vote! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"PM still confused on different types of test. He holds it in his head for a session and then it goes." (- private diaries of Sir Patrick Vallance, Chief Scientific Adviser)

... and yet, over here, we were comparatively lucky:

"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?" (- Donald Trump, White House coronavirus task force briefing, live on national television, 23 April 2020)

And some of you guys actually want him back?? Sheesh. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make sense of it, either. In Argentina, at least they can blame it on 140% inflation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you worry.... as soon as we've removed all the ACM cladding, and replaced all the RAAC in our schools, hospitals, court-rooms and theatres, and got HS2 back on track and under budget, and sent all the boat people to Africa... we'll have a good three weeks left to grow the economy, reduce debt and cut NHS waiting lists. If not, we'll all get nice cushy jobs as presenters on GB News!! -- The Good Old Days 123 (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2023

Yeah, but can you make Mexico pay for it? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, good point. I think we'll just settle for making Australia pay for it! --Matty and Nigel's Excellent Adventure 123 (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Breaking news

Did you know ...

• ... that a 2018 study by researchers from the Magna Græcia University suggested that Italian scuola metafisica artist Giorgio de Chirico suffered from Alice in Wonderland syndrome?

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giorgio de Chirico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paramnesia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Hey bot"... I can't help feeling I've seen your notifications before. And I've got this sneaky feeling you've posted this exact same thing somewhere else!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [6][reply]

So, Sections 4/5/6 down. I’ll take a look back at 1 next, where lots of work’s already been done. Then, 2, where less has moved, and finally the rather daunting 3, where b@gger all’s happened. There’ll be a slight hiatus coz I’m away again next week, and then we’ve the big move in early December. But by Christmas 2024 we’ll be clear! KJP1 (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'm sure hundreds of other editors, inspired by your efforts, will soon rush over to help out. Alternatively, the imminent creation of copy-vio-bot will soon decimate the CCI listings. But seriously, your efforts are very much appreciated (by me at least). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are my edit summaries of any help at all? Would anything else be more useful for you? Ironically, as an unblocked editor, I am now freely able to wander over to any other CCI and decide if it's content needs any deletion or re-wording. Obviously I am disinclined to do that, or indeed to make any decisions on my own edits. As far as I can see, no advice is given on this aspect in the CCI guidlelines. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest - and to save you time - not really! You still have to review the diff, then review the page as it now is, then review the source, then make a judgement call, and then either close it as N or make any necessary tweaks. The summary is really just another thing you have to read/be cognisant of. What is really needed is the Frankenstein monster AI Bot that can tell if it’s a false positive or not. I’ve been looking over the Project pages and there have been prior discussions on this, and some WMF funding for tools that improve the workflow. But I’m sure that some of our tech-savvy colleagues (and I don’t include either you or I in that!) could develop something that would really help. I’ve flagged the issue so we can see what transpires. KJP1 (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I won't bother. Obviously you can ask me to rewrite, but it's generally going to be about 10 times quicker if you simply just do a tweak (or a presumptive tweak) as you go along, just as you have been doing. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, Where I could use some help is with Medlar-with-Wesham. It's largely yours. Aside from reading like a Yellow Pages entry, and with a wealth of unsourced local colour; the "war memorial enjoys attractive floral displays throughout the year"!?WTF!?; it has two big bits on buildings, the Mowbreck Hall bit, and the whole section devoted to the workhouse. Neither is sourced, but both have the "ring" of having come from somewhere. "a fine edifice of red brick" / "faced with Accrington red-pressed bricks, and stone dressings". Any ideas as to where? What it really needs is a through copy edit/trim. KJP1 (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll have a look. But feel free to remove anything that looks suspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Does the workhouse (later Wesham Park Hospital) even exist any more? The 2020 newspaper article says it was scheduled for demolition. KJP1 (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The site is now mostly a housing development. The last little bit of the former hospital, which was being used by the NHS, was indeed demolished in 2020 and half of the site is now taken up by a purpose-built residential care home for the elderly. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a book source from 1912 (Brownbill and Farrer (eds): The Victoria History of the County of Lancaster Volume 7). Is that still covered by copyright? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another one is A la Ronde. I think you said you still had the guidebook. Swathes of it are uncited, and much of it reads like a "lift". Other stuff we think comes from the Searle blog - or did he copy from us? What it needs is a thorough trim, and a check against the guidebook to ensure that any close paraphrasing is eliminated. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Since my contributions, User:Murgatroyd49, User:Rupples and User:Jack1956 have all made useful substantive edits. I wonder if any of them also have a copy of the guidebook. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of the guidebook (published 1991) Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an edition revised in 2008. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick check, mine is revised 2018, thought it wasn't that old. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Doubt that our editions differ that much (mine has 32 pages). KJP says of the article: Swathes of it are uncited, and much of it reads like a "lift". So looks like we all ought to have a go at improvements, if we can? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I haven't got is the Rough Guide where some of it may have come from, looking at the current refs. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nor me. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first thing to do is go through and identify all the material covered in the guide book and properly reference it with page numbers. I'll make a start on that later on. (Have shopping to do first!) Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific - many thanks, both. What I'd also like to see is what Pevsner says. But that can wait, and will have to until my books are finally out of the bloody boxes. Unless, of course, either of you or a TPS has the updated Devon. KJP1 (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's of any use, I can dig out my old Devon Pevsner. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it would be very useful if you could add that as a source for anything that's currently unsourced, although there's not a lot of architectural detail? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmyrtle - as Martin always says, any Pevsner is better than none! KJP1 (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

errrrm, what I actually said was "any Prosecco is better than none." But never mind. Your can't beat some good Pevs. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

I've now added a few words from Pevsner (technically, Cherry and Pevsner). Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Guy. I do hope you won't he accused of Cherry picking. "fnaar, fnaar!" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A thought occurs, while I wait to go to the library to check the ODNB entry for Jane Parminter; there is a separate article about the cousins at Jane and Mary Parminter which more or less duplicates the history section. Would it be worthwhile merging the two articles while we are in the process of a relatively major edit? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Murgatroyd. That might be a good idea. Another strategy might be to move all the biographical material from A la Ronde to Jane and Mary? Let's see what KJP1 thinks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC) p.s. I can access the ODNB, using by library card number, from home.[reply]

It's just that there is a large overlap, most of the J&M article is about A la Ronde anyway. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. The two articles should certainly be rationalised in some way. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have commented at the Proposal. I understand the rationale, but have a concern re. removing an article about 18/19th century women. KJP1 (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just to let you know that the fountain is still there, or was the last time I looked. It's tucked away in the small open triangle - Seven Dials Close, behind Sainsbury's where Las Iguanas is situated. It was largely the opposite side of Saw Place that was redeveloped. Mighty Antar (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for telling me, Mighty Antar. I was actually looking for a source that gave the location. The caption "Blair's handprints in Bath, UK" looked a bit vague and puzzling to me, especially as the image isn't explained anywhere in the text. In fact, that's the only mention of Bath - I wonder did Blair have some connection with the city? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pegasussy (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that that discussion has now "run its course". It's not always a good idea to go running off to AN/I after less than a minute. I'd like to apologise to any of my fellow editors who may have felt obliged to defend what may have been seen as "ill advised" comments. But I'm not prepared to compromise on my personal view of Mr Yaxley-Lennon. The suggestion that he has written "... best selling books, which have sold millions" is a complete joke. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is most unfair that WP:BOOMERANG-generating ANI threads happens when I'm off-wiki. What am I supposed to do with all this popcorn? On-topic for the discussion though; there used to be a bit of graffiti on the western exit to Ashford International railway station that proudly said "Free Tommy" which has since been defected to be illegible, and erased by the council. Of course, this could be simply a campaign to re-instate Mr Boyd on children's television again and I've completely misunderstood. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you feel a right lemon. "Rock on, Tommy!!". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RIP Jean Knight (1943–2023): seems somehow appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the fun at ANI, I see! But I actually came here to ask you to mind your tone on that ... gentlemen's talk page. I share your utter contempt but Wikipedia is not the place for our opinions and talk pages are for discussing articles, not subjects, and even people we don't like enjoy the protection of our BLP policy. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you saw my apology to fellow editors above? I'm sure I would not have shared by views so quickly if I had not been provoked by some pretty ridiculous claims. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. And I'm late to the party. I just wanted to remind you of the purpose of talk pages and the importance of BLP so we don't have any more issues in the future. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you it was no party, or even any fun, for me. I think Threesie might have some left-over popcorn to share if you're peckish. But thanks for the reminder. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Martin, Harry, or Ritchie want to take a walk on the colony-side, do come and see Jacob Chansley. (The hatnote at the top of that page is worth the price of admission.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. I'm sure Jacob and "our Tommy" would get along like a house on fire. But remind me not to do too much walking over there! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC) A hustle here and a hustle there??[reply]

Careful with that walking thing. Crossing the road is illegal over there! ;) That's possibly the second-funniest hatnote I've ever seen. This one has to be my favourite though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's definitely the winner! I laughed out loud. But for the distant second, I think the wolves should sue, but not the Rose one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with that walking thing. Crossing the road is illegal over there! Funny story, my first time encountering a crosswalk. We don't have many roads to worry about. --ARoseWolf 21:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walking?? Isn't that something you Yankees do when you're finally too old to drive? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. We just sit on the couch and shout at the TV. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, not so different then, after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [7][reply]

I only just went to get my drivers license a few years ago. I have only driven an automobile a few times since then. Yankee?? I am not from New York but I did have an encounter with a lamp pole in Times-Square when I visited. Probably best to leave that experience in the locked box, Asareel. --ARoseWolf 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the way I drive, stay off of the sidewalk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"And if you don't like the way I insult people, stay off of the Talk page!" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC) .... don't be a dummy, just take your meds[reply]

User:Lourdes not running this year? Well maybe, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no woman, and Opabina regalis dropped out. And none of the candidates even understood my question, but what's new? - Ten years ago, an arb voted to ban an editor citing a diff in which he had uncollapsed an infobox and brought it back from the bottom to the normal position. None of the colleagues called him out on it. None of them had understood the diff which superficially looked as if he had added the box. I don't think they ever realised their mistake. My friend was not banned only because one of the arbs generously changed his vote (days later, heavy days for me), arguing that he didn't want to be the one voice needed to ban a prolific content editor. The whole thing made me mistrust arbitration. The best reply this year was "better make music than edit when angry" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'm quite ready yet to be ticking any of their boxes. I'm making a list and checking it twice.... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified guide to arbitration I continue to live by: Don't. --ARoseWolf 12:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you say so. But it's always great to have a committee, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know one committee that is very useful and fun (opinion), apparently until three users leave the same message on a user talk page. --ARoseWolf 15:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One can't have too many birthdays, can one? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Don't." is from Hammersoft, and best advice. I am tempted not to vote. 8 of 10. None of them will brake the Wiki, but none of them looked at detail, and none at the broader context. May they be praised for volunteering to do a dirty job.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting from a default "Oppose" for all ArbCom candidates. I'll review them, but it'll be difficult for any of them to move the needle off of oppose for me. ArbCom needs to go. It is a toxic boil on the heart of Wikipedia and a distinctly negative presence on the project. If it were an editor rather than a committee, it would have been banned from the project a long time ago. Failing candidates advocating significant reform, I see no reason to support them. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we can't we tempt you off the fence on this one, Hammersoft? I'm willing to start from a default "Oppose" for all candidates, but then swiftly move to something more negative. "I didn't get where I am today by having toxic boils in my heart, Reggie!" Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! :) I love it! --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I voted oppose on all candidates and will change it if something a candidate says or has said alters my position as I go through their answers and even look at past discussions they have had. It is nothing personal to any candidate, several of which I have admired for their work here, only that is always my default setting for all arbitration. --ARoseWolf 18:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could we not have four columns: Oppose, Neutral, Support and Dismiss? Might speed things up. At least HJ Mitchell took the trouble to come to my Talk page to scold me personally. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three columns suffice - neutral is good for nothing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Although I'd be prepared to change "Dismiss" to just "Gunge". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Harry is a good one. He is principled even if we don't agree on everything. Most of us wouldn't agree on everything, like our favorite football squad (Juve), but most of the people I gravitate to in life, there must be something my Gift finds appealing about their principled nature, my Song finds resonates with their Song on some level, and my Life is irrevocably altered by the force of their impact upon me and my trajectory on my journey. --ARoseWolf 19:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry won my heart when, after this desolation, he returned among the first, but to be arb it takes more than winning my heart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had some great conversations with Dreadstar in private. He was a nice guy. Bit of a hothead (even by my standards when I was a decade younger) but he cared about what he was doing and wanted to make Wikipedia a better place. Not sure how he would have felt about Molly delivering the news of the desysop—he once told me he had a soft spot for her! That we (Wikipedians) are still arguing arguing about infoboxes a decade after the original arbitration case tells me that (some) people just like arguing. That's as true on Wikipedia as it is in life.

And for what it's worth, count me as a member of the "wish there was no ArbCom" party. The two or three cases a year that don't involve admin status could be handled by another body (perhaps a group of trusted editors appointed ad hoc to deal with a single case); I'd love to see an admin review board with powers to desysop for cause if warranted and issue findings on admin actions ranging from fully endorsed to outright admin abuse via "that was silly" and "good faith but could have been handled better". That still leaves some privacy and ban appeal functions but they don't have a lot do with "arbitration" (cf. second bullet here). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this just makes me appreciate you more, Harry. I don't ever want a candidate to think my oppose vote is because I don't appreciate them as an editor/admin or as a person. I inherently don't trust bodies of arbitration whose inner workings are not expressly open to public scrutiny. This latest issue has only confirmed my concern.

We, as editors, devote a large portion of our time to the encyclopedia and community. It is an investment. I have tried to follow the conversation and discussion and decipher where I may stand on the issue. Private warnings, private disclosure and keeping evidence private against other fellow editors, outside that which may out someone's personal identity, with no avenue for the community to have access or judge conduct for themselves only invites distrust.

It leads me back to the same conclusion and the philosophy which Hammersoft, through Gerda, helped me form early, whether that was their intended purpose or not, that the best guide to arbitration is Don't. I know admins do not really have that luxury, per se, because of agreements they made to be an admin. We editors (only) don't have that same responsibility. And I will not leave the potential future of my editing on Wikipedia to a body I frankly don't trust whose process of evidence gathering to arrive at their decisions is not always in the open nor is the execution of their decision always known. How can I trust that they would be fair with the potential evidence gathered against or for me in those instances unless it was provided in the open, again keeping private only that which could out a persons identity? If it came to that I would be the one to decide my fate even if forced into it by the situation. --ARoseWolf 13:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the mistrust of a body that is not transparent about their decision-making. But it seems to me that the solution is not "Don't", because that does nothing to solve the problem. I get it, that trying to get involved and fix what one can does not amount to fixing the things one cannot control. But fixing some things is better than fixing nothing at all. From my own experience, I've seen first hand where I've tried to help someone and was unsuccessful, so I can understand the skepticism there. But I've also been able to help someone, and been successful, multiple times. If I had decided instead to "Don't", I would not have helped those people. That's not nothing. It seems to me that "Don't" is ultimately the lazy way out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your belief, Tryp. I never would try to change your opinion on the matter. I am truly happy you were able to do good and help someone. I honestly believe there is no greater thing a person can do in life than help their fellow man in whatever capacity. --ARoseWolf 21:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, I guess we can leave it at that. Good to share views, and I don't want to hijack Martin's talk any further. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite funky, actually! Get down! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! Like Boney M. with a splash of Downy! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Downy?! lol. In the UK it's branded as Lenore.... quite rocky haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! The lost Lenore! Quoth the Raven, one more time! (No wisecracks about the bust of Paris, now.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

errrrm, was a track on the 1976 album Tales of Mystery and Imagination by The Alan Parsons Project, if I remember correctly! ... a bit spooky Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you hang around in paddock a while, HJ, while I install my own private set of Arbcom voting buttons. I'm hoping to really cash in this year. Thanks. --Honest John 123 (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Harry, did you know that the original case was (or rather: should have been) about infobox opera, because that was new and not wanted by some? It's in more than 1.000 operas now. - If it was only arguing, those who enjoy that could keep doing it without causing harm. But Dreadstar was desysopped for having protected an article because of an edit war over the wording of the hidden message, - Wikipedia lost a good content editor. Another good editor left because she didn't want an infobox for a book. It still has no infobox. I worked on Kafka which really helps ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, what are we going to do with you?! I suggest we just get you in the ring with WP:WikiProject Composers and let you go the distance... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went into the ring, in 2016. It still hurts. (My father died, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, Pierre Boulez and Dreadstar. And then that. It still hurts.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that again. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft has many principles which I have coalesced with principles which I have held since before coming to Wikipedia to form my own Wiki-philosophy. Chief among those being that the system that is Wikipedia sustains itself on vaguely worded policies, inconsistent decisions and a complete lack of general direction. It's why it will never die or go away but will be relegated to leisurely spiral in the realm of relevant irrelevance. I apologize, Rod. --ARoseWolf 18:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh... I can already hear the music! kinda spooky!! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I knew Rod through one handshake :) Not old enough to say I actually met him though. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to push back against some of the discussion in this thread. Pretending that every candidate this year is indistinguishable from the rest, or that opposing everyone will make the community abolish ArbCom, or that taking the position that one will never participate in a case means that one will never find oneself drawn into a case against one's wishes, is childish. The grown-up approach is to recognize that ArbCom is, like every page in Wikipedia mainspace, a work in progress, and that taking the time to improve what's there is generally more helpful than blanking the page. A valid analogy is when people don't bother to pay attention to elections in the real world, and wind up with Donald Trump in the White House. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or even a Yellowstone Wolf on Arbcom?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Little do you know! He's already on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phew!! What a relief. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[8]. --Tryptofizz (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thank you. A very timely word there from our Arbcom sponsors. -- Vincent vance Gopher 123 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Awwww, does this mean I need to put away my TNT? --ARoseWolf 21:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you could get by with Alka-Seltzer... --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I use good old-fashioned pseudoscience for headaches and, in times past, perhaps a case vodka. Just incase any arbitrator is looking to bribe me. ;) --ARoseWolf 21:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently trailing at 50/1. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer whisky. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always had you down as a bit of a Talisker man, HJ. Except when you're a bit grumpy, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when you get to be my age, you start drinking the old person's cocktail: rum and prune juice. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talisker's nice. Jura is a good one, Laphroaig is a favourite. Grouse is tolerable; it has Highland Park in it which is nice and smooth. I can't say I drink it very often. In a pub, I usually follow WereSpielChequers' advice and pick the ale with the silliest name! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing about Laphroaig is, it's so peaty, if you get cold, you can cut off a slice and put it on the fire! I promise not to blackbush you. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I love the imagery of cutting off a slice of Laphroaig! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And in the, um, spirit of the aforementioned Mr. Chansley, lovers of the maraschino cherry (or those who consider it a vegetable) will enjoy a Crossfire Hurricane. Those with good taste, however, should know that it's every bit as disgusting as it sounds. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone say maraschino? "Ah! I'd love a Babyshambles!" (please note YT poster, lol) --Libertine 123 (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that YT poster is in for a very rocky maraschino. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now even a campaign song. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* please see below! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope none of the candidates appear as brazen as BBC presenter Maryam Moshiri. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too late…. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. See "extremely banned" above ..... That's the last time I ever make a pilgrimage to take the grotto cure, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited She Blinded Me with Science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radio Silence.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Good heavens, Miss Sakamoto". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Harley

One of his best, I think: "Scotch and Soul" (2006 Remaster), originally the title track for Scotch & Soul (1966): Rufus Harley – bagpipes, Oliver Collins – piano, James Glenn – bass, Billy Abner – drums, Robert Gosset – congas. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sun

Now preparing for a major re-work of the Sun article, thanks to this recently discovered source. Thank you, Gary Larson! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Lotta Love

Sadly insufficient secondary sources for an entry at List of cover versions of Led Zeppelin songs: alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now booking: Winter Cruises

All aboard for new exciting Winter Earlyish Summer possibly Cruises!! Good Cap'n Jolly Jenrick Mikey welcomes you aboard. Calling at: RAF Scampton, MDP Wethersfield, South Georgia, Ascension Island, Albania, Saint Helena and Kigali. Cost: £240 million. A room of your own or your money back! (well some of it, anyway). Martinevans123 (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC) (Note: sorry, "drop off" at Stockton no longer available)[reply]

With these luxurious accommodations this appears to be a steal. --ARoseWolf 19:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

H.M.Government advice: please keep your passport handy and try not to wear a pink shirt. --World leadin' partnership 123 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

RIP Shane: [9]. from Rum Sodomy & the Lash (1985), vocal: Cait O'Riordan. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there I reverted your addition of a Sunak quote at question time because history suggests this will just lead to some supporter of the Greek position adding a counter quote etc. I think we should avoid this article turning into a forum where editors engage in a running commentary on political squabbles about the marbles. I think the significant fact is that a scheduled meeting was cancelled due to comments about the marbles. The rights and wrongs of this and who said what to who and who was grandstanding (they probably both were) will be an endless debate. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I have no desire to see the "article turning into a forum", thanks. I think the exchange at PMQs was notable and provided Sunak's side of the story (it's now on TV again on the BBC News at Ten programme). It's obvious that the row is essentially a political one, given that Starmer hastily met with Mitsotakis and then boasted about it at PMQs. I doubt it will be in the news again for a while, so this part of the "debate" will hardly be "endless". Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December: story · music · places

Today's story is about Maria Callas, on her centenary. - Aaron Copland died OTD, and Jerome Kohl (mentioned in November) said something wise on Copland's talk, - yes, regarding a soft(er) stance towards infoboxes. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, La Divina. Matchless really. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

25k views. A new church year began (listen), - a new era? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heard this on the radio this morning and thought of you. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Today's story is about parts of my life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And here's Dr. Feelgood playing "She Does It Right", live on Tyne Tees' The Geordie Scene in 1975: [10]. It really does have everything: Brilleaux with a top-mixed, hard-hitting vocal; Wilko on fire (complete with basin-cut and duckwalk); Sparko and The Big Figure beating it out; hundreds of teenage girls not really sure what they are happily dancing to. In fact, a strange juxtaposition between Brilleaux's "She works hard every night just to make me feel alright" and the dancing teenagers. But still a classic. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Looking for something for St Nicholas, - nobody made a DYK for Britten's - can you believe it? - we'll sing my (user's) infobox for Christmas, DYK? - announced the day you mentioned Schütz (first and last movement, - the quote is from the last). I hid a little Mozart on my user talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! What a coincidence. Sounds good! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I managed to get the pics to snow (on 28 Nov), and heard a lovely concert, after listening to a miracle of meditative dreaming on 6 December (or just click on music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

magical Have long been a fan. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC) p.s Luca Sestak was a genius 16 years ago, when aged 12, but he's just got better.[reply]

yes - ... and today, to Paris (29 Nov) with a visit to the Palais Garnier, - to match the story of Medea Amiranashvili, - don't miss listening to her expressive voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda, yes very expressive. I thought you might like this. As you may know, Josh Cooter is in The Gesualdo Six. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like it! - My story today is about Michael Robinson, - it's an honour to have known him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pics up to 3 December (with my shadow in one of them), and a story about Beethoven in memory of his birth. When the arb who wrote the infoboxes case installed the community consensus - in 2015! - I hoped these infobox wars were over, really. - What do you think about writing The Sleeping Child (Chilcott) together? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, at least we know you aren't a true vampire! Happy to help out, if I can on Bob Chilcott. Is there enough for an entire article? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pic, cake (home-baked but not by me) before that dream of a concert - today's story about the woman who directed today's Aida, with a trailer of her work. - I'll check tomorrow about the Child, - it doesn't take much to write an article. Chilcott needs more sources - go ahead ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the Sleeping Child: I planned it tentatively for 25 Dec when I may not get to editing at all ... - Minor request: in your most wonderfully pictured greetings, you closed some "br" but not one of them which I fixed on my talk. Just in case you want to prevent "all-pink" in edit mode of complete pages (instead of helpful editor colours) ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, thanks for telling me. It was my Christmas Puzzle. Hours of fun! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... while my "card" is already above, I just update - story each day, music almost each day. If you follow the diary ("places") today you see an amazing colour coordination of the Gothic church and the table cloth that evening. It was also amazing music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. Don't miss the little doggie, painted by someone famous. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he did many dogs. But that's a very nice one! Meanwhile, I have been listening to a lot of Jephtha lately, like this gem. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't manage the Sleeping Child, - will try tomorrow. - Christmas music pictured --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Child now sleeping ;) - help wanted. - I try to finish uploading images of 2023 before it ends, and reached 17 December. Happy to see Rebekka Habermas on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martinevans123, I apologized for myself putting the wrong category "comedian" for Lesley Joseph and thank you for your understanding for explanation about her. She's just a comic actress. Ernestine Sanchez (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Ernestine. It's a bit of a grey area, isn't it. Comic actresses don't tell jokes but they can still make us laugh. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you, Martin. Ernestine Sanchez (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...thanks for the cited needed tag[11]; now met. That makes you a gentleman in my mind - its always good when tage are added to specific claims rather than, euf, leaving an overbearing and large template at the top. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for adding that source. I didn't look like a very controversial claim. I rather hid that tag under my link addition! Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Observations on Brexit, on BBC's Question Time (2018) and performing "Money" in Newcastle in 1991 Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1189403025

please make sure cwm updates are correct 93.140.28.0 (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, IP 93. Not sure I get what you mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A case of mistaken identity? --ARoseWolf 13:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it. I'm only guilty of reminding everyone that Cwm Albion F.C. are "UK's 'worst performing football team'"!! Thanks for the suggestion, A Rose. Hope you are well. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am well, thank you. I hope I find you the same. If I haven't said it enough, I'm thrilled you back to editing. Our light-hearted conversations have always been a delight of mine and high point of my day. --ARoseWolf 12:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwww, that's so nice of you. Glad to be of service, haha! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [12][reply]

Hey, when a guy throws Hitchcock at me it's most definitely getting serious. Ha! All kidding aside, you are appreciated. Now let me find a window. --ARoseWolf 14:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, try and find a high one. You'll get a better view! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right. Still alive, then. Shucks, there goes another tenner.... Welcome back, buddy!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC) and here's those wonderful ballad-blastin' pop-tastic crooners Peters and Lee for ya! not 'arf, pop-pickers!![reply]

Never bet against a fish (unless you're one of those hookers). But I won't interrupt you any longer, since you appear to have a mess to clean up below. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I went diving with Dean Martin and got attacked by an eel. "What the hell was that?", I screamed... he turned to me and said "that's a moray". Ah thangu! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC) p.s. I'm also quite cool with, like, a gay tarantella. Or, in fact, really any 2SLGBTQ+ arachnid-inspired Italian folk dance.[reply]

And I thought I was the one on drugs... --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"You know when they have a fishing show on TV? They catch the fish and then let it go. They don’t want to eat the fish, they just want to make it late for something." - Mitch Hedberg. -- Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's been hooked! --ARoseWolf 12:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since Martin was promoted to Dean, he's been sitting in a dive bar. (As in Dean Martin Evans 123, diving for a moray... Oh, never mind...) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"There's a ghost fish in my house, I can't hide!" -- R. Dean Evans 123 (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [13]

Shocking! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha! Now we're talking!! [14] Martinevans123 (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His fins are made for walking --ARoseWolf 14:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.... and cue Nancy Fish.... [15]! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that YouTube video of Stingray is not to be missed. Here in the colonies, all I had in my fry-hood was Soupy Sales: [16]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That also explains a lot.... but I guess stereo Pie in The Face looks much better on the radio! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I bet it does explain a lot. When I was little, I loved that show! Take a quick look at Soupy Sales#New Year's Day incident. (Sounds ominous, doesn't it?) I still remember when that happened, and crying in my mother's arms because the show had been taken off the air for Two Whole Weeks. (Now, it sounds like something Trump would do, except not as a joke.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. Something very similar happened in the UK when it was discovered that Spotty Dog ("the very biggest spotty dog you ever did see") was found to be an undercover KGB agent. Pre-school children all over Britain has to send in Transnistrian rubles to get him released from the BBC dog pound. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC) I really must try and find a better source for that fact .....[reply]

Hello @Martinevans123, on article Douglas Murray (author), in the lede section third para contains info about his admirers and critics. So when I included a brief line "He has been accused of being Islamophobic by academics and journalists." with WP:RS sources since it was WP:Notable, another editor removed it. I was thinking maybe you could provide your input if it escalates to edit-war. 182.183.58.243 (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP 182. I don't think I've ever seen that article before, so I'm not really familiar with the material. But the main aim, on any article, is to try and avoid edit warring. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_David_Amess#Should_this_article_reflect_trial_accounts_of_the_attack/Ali’s_behaviour? I have added talk discussion on my edit. 92.17.199.182 (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for telling me. Had you considered creating an editor account? It's very easy. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know it has been months, but I don't feel like doing it but feels that if anyone thinks that the revision I made could be used for any revisions in the future, albeit with better written paragraphs or if they are worth expanding, please feel free to do so, I had long added "further explanation needed" in the last paragraph of the "attack" section; as I am a resident of Southend, I feel that this is better suited to users here, especially as I sadly never knew Amess' name before he died (I guess politics is not my thing and I have autism); regardless of what he was like or what controversies he may have had in life, what happened to him is a terribly sad story. I feel for how much he must have suffered, and certainly for his wife and children. It also helps people to remember there are real families involved, that the man was a people’s relative, their blood, and not just names for amateur sleuths to fuss over. As I mentioned before, I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the Amess family."92.17.198.220 (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP 92. I have responded at Talk:Murder of David Amess. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, SchroCat!! Eeeeeewww, reminds me of that episode. But thanks for the very timely warning about the inherent dangers of unsupervised cornucopia usage on swings. Yours aye, with the rest of the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans, Blowers me ol' china. Vey nice to hear from you! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the lovely and colourful message! All the best to you and yours DBaK (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another year. :)

Kieronoldham (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do confess to watching this video again this morning, and so I can't really justify editing Jacob Rees-Mogg as I'm concerned my POV might get in the way; anyway, I think the talk page discussion is worth having. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, Caroline. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... ah yes, did someone say "physical embodiment of arrogance and entitlement"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC) ... why not treat yourself this Christmas? ... only £18.97 here!! (that's about three and a half hours at the new 18-20 National Minimum Wage of £7.49)[reply]

Oh and by the way, just remember...."someone who is always mildly sedated, can never realise there are better men out there". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's good knowing you're back!! Atsme 💬 📧 14:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brought big frowns and kicked over furniture to most, but whatever (and Merry Christmas to both of you). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, am thinking of running next year. Hasta la vista, baby. And it's a fab chart-bound-sound from Arnold!! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC) p.s. Merry Crimbo, Mr Krynmeister![reply]

Is this the best Christmas song, or what? ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I'm surprised Wombling Merry Christmas doesn't make that claim" Perhaps Gerda could get in on Main Page? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Spedding and Clem Cattini play on this song, and very well.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the wonderful Mr Spedding. "Let's stick a new oar in..." Superb solo! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RIP Tony Oxley: Taunton 1991. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Derek Higgins talking about Tony: [17]. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than remove innocuous unsourced content and the resulting category, isn't it more constructive to do a quick search for sources? South African Coconut ice was easy to source. PamD 07:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pam. Thanks for your note. Hope you are well. Seasons Greetings to you too. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems you had much better luck than I did in finding a source. I'd agree it was quite innocuous and I was a little surprised it had been unsourced for three and a half years. The problem with unsourced claims is that they might not be true. I generally have a look for some source(s) before deleting anything, but on this occasion was unsuccessful. I see there's also a recipe in The South African for chocolate ystervarkies ("little porcupines"). Let's hope they're not too prickly. 😄 Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Captain! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Martinevans123: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. "Blistering Barnacles, Captain"! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like 2019, remember? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have trouble remembering five days ago, let alone five years!! 😄 But thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we have archives ;) - you click on the (former) image and get all names where it was mentioned. Longer story for Floq - don't want to type it again. - I have a poll on WT:DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 picture is from the Abel Fest in Köthen, celebrating the tercentenary of Carl Friedrich Abel, a viol virtuoso, composer and concert organiser in London (together with Bach's youngest son), born on 22 December 1723 in Köthen, where the new catalogue of his works was introduced, - my story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you don't remember five day's ago. You met the author 14 Nov, and the catalogue 22 Dec ;) - better late than never --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main page now: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January music

story · music · places

Thank you for memories! I remember Ewa Podleś on the Main page, and have - believe it or not - two musical DYK. Shalom chaverim. On vacation, with something for your sweet tooth --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, Gerda. Happy Saint Dwynwen's Day! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Today: Anna Nekhames, the article in which a reviewer found nothing interesting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking tons of vacation pictures, 23 chosen for 23 Jan, 6 uploaded, too tired for more - on my talk you see that it's the birthday of Mozart and our conductor ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. Thanks Gerda. Today also the birthday of the wonderful Robert Wyatt. [18] Jennifer Maidman guitar; Annie Whitehead trombone; etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, I didn't realise it was already another day - being in a different time zone than normally - Mozart and conductor 27 Jan. - All 23 pics are there now, and I hope to manage the next day later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Gerda, you're such a jet setter! Gosh, we used to have four BBC channels... those were the days! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and a few new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats (to you and to Gerda)! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, that was about 95% Gerda. I put in the bit about him being a keen rugby player in his youth. But thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like that to appear on my mom's birthday ;) - who introduced me to sing, sing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you (all) can add to Chris Karrer whom I nominated for RD (where it found only one support). I am not sure how to word the Krautrock legend thingy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to bask in the reflected glory, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a DYK on the Main page, but my story would be different, about Figaro, - this Figaro. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your last message at Talk:Paula Vennells. I don't know what it is about that article, but it seems to cause an editorial dispute at every turn (not all involving you, I do acknowledge)!

I do feel as though we've got off on the wrong foot, which is a shame as I believe we edit some of the same topics and so should be Wiki-friends (or at least Wiki-acquaintances). For example, I can see you've been involved with listed buildings in Gwynedd and I've recently brought Criccieth Castle and Dolwyddelan Castle up to GA status. I hope that if we bump into each other again we can make a better go of it. All the best, A.D.Hope (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for such a friendly message. Don't worry, I appreciate your robust discussion! I'm sorry that I am forever trying to make jokes. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC) ...for a moment there I misread and thought you had bought Criccieth Castle and Dolwyddelan Castle! 😄[reply]

To be quite honest I think Wikipedia would be better if editors took themselves less seriously (and I definitely include myself there), so joke away. I reckon I'd have been more open to them if the discussion had seemed less... interminable, not that that's anyone's fault.

I don't think either castle would suit me these days, they're a bit open-plan for my taste! A.D.Hope (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The joke that blew Paula's chances of Bishop of London
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Q: Why did I have to wait a long time at the post office behind Satan? A: Because the devil can take many forms. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's your best one yet, Martin! A.D.Hope (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that’s not saying much! Lol. Notice I didn’t mention Horizon! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Dat" (1976): "Rasta Ozzy from up the hill, Decide to check on him grocery bill..." Opal Records: PAL 5 Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was the producer for "Midnight Rider" by Paul Davidson (1975).

Thank you for ITNN for him. I wanted to fix the bare url, and get a "Security risk" warning, although it is the same website as the notice of his death which I can see fine. "the late veteran ..." isn't exactly neutral language to me ... - Have you seen my story today? Also on ITNN, - no comment yet. I have other (DYK) stories the two next days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Schickele, too. But I trust that PDQ lives on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that, Gerda. It's a unsecure mobile version of the site. I'll have to look for a better source which gives the chart position. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bit of Pluto's Little Weed from "Dat". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, lovely! - The composer is also on the Main page now, but I got nervous ;) - I have a pun on my talk, DYK, because St. Joseph is in Wedding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A pun? Well done! But I have yet to find it, lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd look for "wedding". Shortcut to the wedding pun --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, of course. Obviously too subtle for me! Let's hope they don't split. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile... back in 1967 Soviet Russia... here's the amazing Yuri Gulyayev. (A bit incongruous, I must admit: you're all sat down cosy, in a respectable little down-town Moscow supper club, and this guy suddenly gets up and starts wailing about a 17th-century Cossack leader who kills the beautiful Persian Princess he's just married and then throws her from his boat into the River Volga, "...in a gesture addressed to his disgruntled jealous comrades who accuse him of "mellowing down" after just one night spent with a woman." Let's face it, after a few bottles of 80 proof vodka with our mates, we've all been there, haven't we. [19]) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.... and here's the better known version. Incredibly sweet. Wonderful harmonies. So sad. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Stephen. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Follow the sources" is the default, but is a convention not a firm rule. In articles on UK railways, for example, the current consensus is to use imperial, despite the fact that railway engineering in Britain has been done exclusively in metric since 1975. So the disp=flip option in {{convert}} gets heavy usage .

So the choice also depends on existing use in the article concerned, hence the MOS:RETAIN reference. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I had assumed that "Follow the sources" was written somewhere in policy. I was surprised to see hectares shown first at Open University. That's a perfectly reliable source from the OU itself there, of course; perhaps ecology at the OU is always done in metric? But if one were to find multiple other sources, all equally reliable, that used acres, or which put acres first, I'm not sure how it would be "gaming the system" to use them. Most geographical areas of land I've seen for UK articles put acres first. So I guess MOS:RETAIN could be balanced against overall consistency. Are acres still taught in UK schools? I must admit I don't know. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it gaming the system if someone actively went hunting for sources to support a specific POV.

AFAIK, schools teach SI as the foundation system but have to ensure that students are aware of common imperial measures in common use, like miles, feet, inches; stones, pounds and ounces; pints and possibly gallons. No doubt rural schools teach acres but I'd be surprised if urban schools bother much. Of course with lunatic ideas like pint bottles of wine being proposed in all seriousness, who knows what nonsense the DFE is demanding nowadays. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it on, I say! I'm all for Letterbox wine! ...Red Wine and Hobnobs, anyone?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Johnson MBE (7 February 1927 – 16 January 2024) - composer of the theme for The Avengers (1965) and many, many more. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Frank Farian. But we won't mention Milli Vanilli.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have always seen you, Ian, as a kind of Wikipedia Daddy Cool, lol. The theme from The Avengers must be one of the best ever. "Just wonderful, Mrs. Peel"! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farian had already done something similar with Bobby Farrell. I was shocked, shocked to learn that he did almost none of the male singing for Boney M, but it all went badly wrong with Milli Vanilli.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine you've got all the Farrell moves, too! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, it should be pointed out that Maizie Williams also sang very little if at all during the studio recordings of the Boney M songs. For some reason this never caused a controversy, although it did when Farian had the same idea with Milli Vanilli.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seems even though Morvan and Pilatus were "more talented musically than Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger", they only had a few Farrell sidestep moves... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Anne Safka-Schekeryk (February 3, 1947 – January 23, 2024): "Brand New Key". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Brand New Key" was a number four hit in the UK, but The Wurzels reached number one with "The Combine Harvester". Life just isn't fair sometimes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Ooh-arh, ooh-agh". Yes, another work of genius. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about reverting your edit, I'm tryng to keep the image close to the relevant text. It actually worked better before a previous editor removed half of the explanation. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it did, but that may have been "copyvio", so I can't complain... Often a trade-off with stubs. "Snow biggie, dude". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be me, I'm afraid! The difficulty was that the long explanation - some Martin's, some not - was not supported by the Coflein entry. This says, rather briefly, "Lead mine waste", and identifies it as a "Post-medieval Mining feature". And that's it. The long explanation of how the "head/body/legs" were formed just isn't there. Obviously, if someone can paraphrase a suitable RS which covers all this, then back in it can go. KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I understand why, I was just looking at the visual effect! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparenlty Big Brother. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Can you do the cat?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you the rumors are false (and there is a restraining order out anyway). Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huw am I?? (Warning: recycled joke from User:Ianmacm) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just making a heavy-handed point to a new editor. Anna (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed it, anyway. Gambians are people too, you know! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stick with "Gambian school children" in future. For reference. Anna (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just clarifying. Per MOS:BIRTHPLACE birth/death places are not put in the brackets with dates. Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates. Executive zombie (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds entirely reasonable. Always great to see some useful trimming. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

over a packet of fags. I'm surprised that, by 2012, they could get away with heralding a packet of cigarettes as representing "20 years of quality"! ...lights another Malboro Gold and returns to task at hand. KJP1 (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A good smoke at a fair price" (i.e. your lungs).... "No, you don't see many wild stallions any more." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin - have to break off, as we're out to lunch. I need a way to make multiple references to the Stansfield article, but with different page numbers in each. I don't really want the article to appear multiple times in the Refs. I could do it if we were sfn, but we're not. Any ideas? KJP1 (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sfn would be the way to go, I guess. Article would need a slight overhaul? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're all done now. If you had time to sfn it - as you say, the others would need doing to - that would be great. No worries if not, I'll put it on my To-Do list. Unless, any savvy TPSs know a better way to deal with multiple journal cites? KJP1 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias - looks much better! Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"No le gusta caminar, No puede montar a caballo, Cómo se puede bailar, Es un escándalo!" apologies, the only Spanish I can bring to mind.... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit here, Lady Park Wood National Nature Reserve, inspired me to create the above. I used to love running across that swingy bridge as a kid! KJP1 (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah bless. Used to go hiking around there. Yes, very swingy, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it clean, you two! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already promised to show him my half hitches and lashings. Just leave KJP's woggle out of this, if you don't mind! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I promise knot to do anything objectionable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"She was only the scoutmaster's daughter, But couldn't she make a massive sheet bend!!" Hay thang-u!! etc. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I come here to share some innocent childhood memories, and it's like a round of Innuendo Bingo! KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, the lovely old Samantha (and good old Sven). Yes, I know, I blame that fish character. He's like the proverbial bad penny... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC) It's a case of "oh, ruddy Nora, not again!" And I don't mean that one. But it keeps me smiling lol.[reply]

It's all Martin's fault. And I have documents to prove it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure all readers that this is a complete and utter tissue of lies and extreme fibs on stilts. Any more of this malarkey and I'll probably end up with the hives and the screaming abdabs!! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But at least your woggle will be OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Not so sure about my wiggle... "It's A Wiggly Wiggly World." (... with special guest Rolf Harris!!!) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about it, either. But you can always fake it till you make it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While following the recent news, I wonder if the Earhart article could use some clearing up to simplify the length or descriptions of events. The description of the main image is superfluous, saying "Earhart beneath the nose of her Lockheed Model 10-E Electra, March 1937 in Oakland, California, before departing on her final round-the-world attempt prior to her disappearance"; the words "before departing on her final round-the-world attempt prior to her disappearance" could be omitted as it would be very clear when the photo was taken and doesn't necessary relate to the vanishing as that was months away. The words "It is generally presumed that she and Noonan died somewhere in the Pacific during the circumnavigation, just three weeks prior to her fortieth birthday" are an odd placement to me, as in the event any of the theories (crash and sink or Gardner island castaway) are ever confirmed, it could be misleading, particularly if for the sake of argument, it is the castaway theory that is confirmed, it possible she would have lived to have seen her 40th birthday, if she had survived on Gardner for some time before perishing. Speaking of which, there is a possible article that could be used for the recent sonar discovery in which David Jourdan (himself a crash and sink theorist) cautions, "It is impossible to identify anything from a sonar image alone as sound can be tricky and the artifact could be damaged in unpredictable ways altering its shape. For that reason, you can never say that something is (or isn’t) from a sonar image alone,^[1]~~ 92.17.199.182 (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess she might have had a caption premonition? Who knows....perhaps it was just a false alarm. And yes, very sad there was no cake. But your arguments all look pretty sound to me. [20] Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken my above paragraph to the Earhart talk page. It appears there is a discussion to split the article regarding the "vanishing" section. ~~ 92.17.199.182 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. That's the best place for it! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, what an album.... "with songs that stick close to a vision of darkness, gloom, and noise." No-one else can really play like Thompson. He just seems to get better and better. "Her Love Was Meant for Me". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

My calendar story today is about Michael Herrmann celebrating his birthday. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today I am happy about a singer on the Main page (at least for the first hours), after TFA the same day last year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. An interesting range. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you made my day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And mine too, for proving my point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am very glad to hear it! I had no idea, as I can honesty say... I am not really a Dedicated Follower of DYK! [21]. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which point, proved how? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the wonderful Planxty, featuring the amazing Liam O'Flynn (1945–2018): "The Jolly Beggar" (Child ballad 279). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, some other day: Seiji Ozawa died, and I remember Haydn's Die Schöpfung, dress rehearsal in Tanglewood, as if it was yesterday. Kathleen Battle. Chorus all in white and singing from memory. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, three days ago. A famous family. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I made today's story I was sure Alfred Grosser would appear on RD today, which may happen or not but I go to bed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Seiji Ozawa. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and today a woman and her views --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your name in the ITNN candidates, where I have (again) one lingering on the last day - could you check if you can support Rudolf Jansen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me, honest. Just one of my socks with the same name... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now posted, I see. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 4 minutes before midnight. - The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to music from Ukraine if you like, - I heard it in 2022, and the November concert (at a different church) raised a truckload of winter clothes. My story today is also from my life: I heard the singer in 3 of the 4 mentioned musical items. I sang in yesterday's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda. Amazing singing. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They had to rearrange and adjust to the "cruel" situation of two altos and men, because many sopranos couldn't travel because there husbands were drafted and they had to serve the family. - Today's story celebrates a woman's birthday. She sat right in front of me when I took the picture at a lovely concert, celebrating her son's 60th. I thought she was 90 today, - no, 91 already. You can listen, starting at the piece he dedicated to her, Op. 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining that about the cruel situation - it certainly worked out well. Ah yes, Rossini. You can't beat a bit of "shooting an apple off the head of your son Walter in a single attempt", can you. If he was alive today he'd only be 58! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

;) - did you listen to the Kyrie with the rhythm that stays with you fo the rest of the day? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now, look where your seeking to engage with that tin-foil hatter on the Paula Vennels talkpage has got us to. They are now leaving Banning Notices on my Talkpage! Have you sorted your maths yet? KJP1 (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, yes.... the contagion seems to be spreading. DYK..... that King Charles III is really a giant reptile? Yes, maths all sorted thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A giant reptile, and in an illegitimate marriage. And me a sock puppet of Ghmyrtle. Who knew. KJP1 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear Windsor Register Office will do salamanders, on a Thursday, if you slip them a few quid. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like it when folks swing their elbows widely. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That old Glasgow idiom springs to mind.... "ye cruisin' for a bruisin', laddie!" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You is.... rockin' like a Ninja, stingin' like a bee! (but don't quote me on that...) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whaaat?[22] Ceoil (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of redrafting. I don't think the article is long enough to warrant that degree of duplication in the lead. Oh well, whatevs. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, but am working towards expanding the main body. As always, could really use your help here Martin. Ceoil (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme an hour or two, and then might ask for you egale eyes. ps, having been ispired during talk chit chat with Serial earlier this morning, myself and my brother bought tickers to see these Fall influenced merchants in London in mid march.[23]. Oh boy do I love one note music! Ceoil (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New to me. Are those gladiolis on the mic stand?? lol Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An obv ref to Steven Patrick, which I think is nice. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damo Suzuki (16 January 1950 – 9 February 2024): "Spoon" (1971). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Paperhouse" from Beat-Club (also 1971).

Lets not forget poor Malcolm: Father cannot Yell, December 2017. Note the two bass players :) Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best track on Ege Bamyasi? For me it's always "I'm So Green". A real groove. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only discovered this during the week Dizzy Dizzy...it takes a while to get going but that is some seriously controlled funk. Maybe they didn't afterall completely loose it after Suzuki quit. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another favourite! At their best at that time, in my view. Soon Over Babaluma and Landed both great. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second-Largest refracting tele. Fact check lens size of Swedish 1-m Solar Tele —which is larger. Classact1000 (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to ask at Talk:Yerkes Observatory? I've never seen that article before. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can do these yourself, you know! KJP1 (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh... impressive! And well done. I won't even check it for coyvio. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could almost certainly do with a check for typos etc. It is also rather "thin". And it's a pity that we don't seem to have a photo of the Morgan Chapel. But it's a Start. KJP1 (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a very good start! I'll try and make some tiny pedantic "improvements". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me, about five years ago!, we said we'd do something about Tredegar House. For one of Wales most important country houses, it's a pretty poor article. Shall put it back on the to-do list. KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My present health state, and age (probably more the latter), means that I struggle to concentrate on matters for more than a few minutes. I wonder if you might have some interest in this outfit - if so, there has been a new, single purpose editor cutting a swathe through the article with editing comments such as "actual details incorrect and members incorrect . Incorrect place band formed , incorrect details how gee street was started incorrect description of band members".

I have not the time to investigate all those 'incorrect' amendments, but I did look long enough at Martin Strong's publication to note that he states the band formed in Clapham, not Brixton. Needless to say the editor does not supply any reference(s) to back up his claims. If you have the time and inclination, of course. Thanks - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Derek. I'll try and take a look. I see that Strong's The Great Rock Discography is available on line, but with no preview. But I see his 1996 The Wee Rock Discography also says Clapham. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I should, perhaps, have made it clearer that I possess my own print copy of Strong's tome. So if you need to check anything there, I would be able to help. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I thought you might. By all means add a comment, if you want, to the Talk page thread, just to confirm it also says Clapham on page 935 of Strong (2000)? (I mean, this might be a POV thing, as Brixton and Clapham are right next to each other anyway? - it might have been at the Hope and Anchor, or anywhere on Acre Lane! Maybe Threesie has some ideas on that....?) But I think we can agree it wasn't in Nottingham. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick seems to be a generally helpful editor, so maybe we can resolve some of his issues with the article. I suspect we may be short of WP:RS sources, that he will find frustrating. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite probably. This is not the first time that I have had/witnessed correspondence with 'pop' musicians, but given the world of hype that they live in, they do seem to struggle with the notion of editing guidelines. Many thanks for your efforts so far. I have dug out Colin Larkin's The Virgin Encyclopedia of Popular Music - Concise Edition, pp. 1135/6, 1997 - ISBN 1-85227-745-9, which may prove useful moving forward, although I am loathe to make editing changes until and when Nick returns. The 'Concise Edition' is a misnomer - it weighs in excess of 6lb (don't know how much, as my wife's kitchen scales only go up that far) and makes my Collins English Dictionary look positively slimline. Regards, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a true heavyweight of a source. I wouldn't wait any longer than you want to. Nick has made it clear that he understands how editors work here. And, in any case, he said a month, but these rockstars have a habit of jetting off all over the shop, don't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they are rather prone to - although Nick is 63 now, surely a bit late to be "'aving it large" ?! Anyhow, just for an update, I have edited Stereo MC's as far as I intend to at this juncture. Also I have effected some changes at the associated articles for Gee Street Records, Cath Coffey (sister of Costa), and Brit Awards 1994. Do we now wait and see ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I guess we can just wait, yes. Not Denise, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please examine the up-to-date information I have referenced in the talk page for the 737 MAX. It is factually incorrect in 2024 to imply that the Ethiopian and Indonesian crashes were purely caused by MCAS. Leaving out information that was discovered in the crash investigations and court cases does a disservice to readers. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:2826:EC6A:8140:2117 (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] You are edit warring, so I've added a warning to your talk page. If you persist, you are likely to be blocked. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] I really, really hope you see that it is wrong to block someone for simply trying to correct factually incorrect information. Please examine the information I have included in the talk page. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:2826:EC6A:8140:2117 (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] You have been invited to discuss your edits at Talk:Boeing 737 MAX. If you simply refuse, and continue to edit war, you'll be blocked. Possibly indefinitely. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] I started the "Major Updates Needed" topic on the talk page 7 days ago. The information is there for you and other users to reference. It is publicly available information from official, reliable sources. The sentence that you have continued to revert, "In 2019, the Boeing 737 MAX was grounded worldwide after a flight control system caused two new aircraft to crash..." is factually incorrect and my change to "In 2019, the Boeing 737 MAX was grounded worldwide after crashes..." simply removes the factually incorrect information. That requires no new source; the source referenced for that information is incorrect. Please, please help correct the 737 MAX article to remove all instances of editorialization. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:2826:EC6A:8140:2117 (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] No, it's not factually incorrect, it's just a summary. If there had been no MCAS, these two crashes would not have happened and 346 people would not have died. You're meant to wait for consensus at the Talk page BEFORE you repeatedly restore your preferred wording in an article. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Please, please examine the information I've referenced. I understand that many people feel very strongly about these particular crashes, but that should not override plain facts. Both sets of pilots did not follow established standard procedures for a stabilizer trim runaway, this is fact. Investigations from the NTSB confirm that the pilots could have safely flown the planes, regardless of MCAS, if they had followed these procedures. 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:2826:EC6A:8140:2117 (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Do you understand that the appropriate venue for discussion is Talk:Boeing 737 MAX, not here? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] I see you've now been blocked from Boeing 737 MAX. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Martinevans123!

You recently restored chunks of a previous version of Martin Heidegger with the edit description "unexplained removal of sourced content". If you look back through the edit history, however, I think you will find that these are mostly my edits, and that I provided fairly detailed descriptions of non-trivial changes that I made as I proceeded piecemeal through the article (which is how I prefer to edit—in the interest of transparency and so that other editors can revert more selectively where they might disagree). At the same time, I was also active on the talk page with respect to any more general issues that other editors might wish to raise. It's always possible I made some bad calls, but I didn't just delete blocks of content without justification.

In view of this, would you kindly consider self-reverting? And to make your desired changes in a manner that is likewise easier to track? I don't have any strong vision for the article, and I think you'll find me a fairly easy-going collaborator if you intend to do more work on it (and it definitely does still need work—esp. post-BT!) I just find it hard to track what's being changed when so many changes are being made together in a single edit.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PatrickJWelsh, you mean this edit I made yesterday? Whoever that brand new anon IP was, they could have offered at least two edit summaries? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa! I am even worse than I thought at interpreting diffs. I got to this through my watchlist and did not do my due diligence. You were reverting what I thought you were reinstating. That was the right call. I've reverted your self-revert with an edit description explaining that this was a misunderstanding, not a disagreement—and also inviting the IP editor to swing by the talk page if there are reasons to prefer the earlier version.

Thanks for being so gracious about this!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I was a bit bewildered. No worries. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC) "I wanted a woman, never bargained for you"![reply]

Hi, can you please explain why you removed important citation confirming 59 MPs have signed no confidence EDM in the lead? Please consider reinstating urgently. Thanks "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy states that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lindsay-hoyle-commons-gaza-ceasefire-vote-latest-b2500595.html Jaymailsays (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per my edit summary, it was in line with WP:LEADCITE. As this is a plain fact, I'm not sure it's controversial or contentious. The material is fully supported, with the same source, in the main body of the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is likely to challenge a fact like that? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just about to challenge his date of birth but stopped when I saw that it had a handy cite in the lead!?! KJP1 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Errrrm. Well the source I removed still says "60 MPs sign no-confidence motion". So not the best source for this. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC) p.s. it's now 65, which is still only 10% of MPs. And there's no criterion level or agreed procedure for this. Someone would have to place another EDM asking for a vote of no confidence. Hoyle has already apologised to the house twice and he seems to have acted out of a very sincere fear that MPs are in danger of reprisals if they don't get an opportunity to have their say. A re-run of the debate is still a possibility[reply]

Sure - I wasn’t questioning the removal, just why somebody felt his DOB with a matter of sufficient controversy to warrant a cite in the lead. As to the shameful goings-on at Westminster, I think it’s pretty wounding for Hoyle. When was the last time a Speaker was faced with a No Confidence motion supported by 60+ MPs? Bercow? I don’t think even he faced that, and he was a hell of a lot less popular than Hoyle. KJP1 (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of editors add the source for date of birth to the opening line of the article to save putting it in the infobox. I tend to try and put it next to an entry in "Early life". Not sure what Wiki policy says about this. Yes, compared to Bercow, Hoyle is much more respected on both sides of the house. Ben Wallace tweeted: "I have served under three speakers. Lindsay Hoyle is head and shoulders above the rest. He is fair, kind and a protector of back benchers. He is not a bully nor a grandstander nor pompous. He has my full support." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The date of birth should be cited in the body, then lead and infobox need no cite. Generally: The lead should only cite quotations and facts that only appear in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For this and this. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! So THAT'S what's occurin'! Thanks for the reminder. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if people meet Ruth Jones and are surprised to find that she doesn't look a bit like Nessa.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I often sees er down the slots, but she just ruddy blanks me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy St David's Day, from Tony and I! KJP1 (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And about time, too! What took you so long? "Dydd Gŵyl Dewi Hapus", as they say in Ystradgynlais!! The cheque's in the post... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Middle name David. Due St David's Day 1948, arrived 3 days early. Never happened since. Good to see the copyvio project is completed; largely thanks to KJP1. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Tony! (That £100 Ann Summers voucher is on it's way! I won't tell anyone, honest.) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know? :o( Tony Holkham (Talk) 17:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if leeks can be winnowed (probably not), but I'm happy to see that winnowing fan at KJP1's talk. Yippee! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You too could have enjoyed multiple discount vouchers for the top Oxford Street stores ... and a year's subscription to riveting current affairs podcasts. It's a bit late now!! But thanks, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 did about half of the checks on his own, so deserves special thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

What a relief! On Smetana's 200th birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to say it was a day earlier, on Saint David's Day! But I'm sure Smetana would have been over-joyed either way. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sun&clouds pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in memory of the birthday of a friend who showed me art such as this, and of Vami --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on vacation, have something sweet - DYK that I invented 2 comments per discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a very good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ;) - Rossini's Petite messe solennelle was premiered on 14 March 1864, - when I listen to the desolate Agnus Dei I think of Vami. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the links, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Luca Sestak with Solfeggietto. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where? - Today, my story is a piece dear to my heart, still in memory. When I sang it first, a friend was in the audience with her husband who knew he was to die soon. She played a tape from the performance for his funeral. I may have told you before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you told me before. That's very touching. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - I uploaded vacation pics (from back home), at least the first day, - and remember Aribert Reimann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next day, around Porto da Cruz, on Bach's birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday, JS! "Was mir behagt ist nur die muntre Jagd" (Ellen McAteer, soprano) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a few new pics, and two people for DYK --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

still a few more (same day), a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration - do you think Pollini is ready for RD? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pollini looks pretty polished to me. Here he is playing a Chopin nocturne. Just utterly wonderful. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and also for your click to Easter. Good to see three in a row for RD that we nominated. I have two more noms open in case you want to support ;) - listening to the Passion - still moving four years later. 31 new pics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I listen to Bach's St John Passion today a second time, now with chorus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last news here: 2 days later in time, a different music, - Happy Easter listening! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, PFHLai. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, given your helpful work on the various Savile articles, if you have done anything on the Lord Lucan case, but in light of a recent article that notes a new possibility that the wife may have been overlooked as a suspect, I wonder if you know how I should have phrased the paragraph about it, or how the article should reflect her version of events, which has generally been accepted as fact. I hasten to add I am not casting aspersions on the late Lady Lucan's character.~~ 80.43.251.32 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the famous DJ and charity fundraiser, bless him. My "work" on the Savile articles has been quite minimal. If I ever edited anything at John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, it must have been via one of my less successful sockpuppets, who has since vanished without trace. If I ever manage to see the connection between these two luminaries of British culture, I may even be tempted to have a look. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC) p.s. wasn't Lord Lucan stolen by the IRA?[reply]

also "vanished without trace" Wait, what? You were Lord Lucan all along? This is very disappointing Martin, but trilling too. Your the head off 1984 Freddie Mercury. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yes, I admit it. Me and Freedie did used to swap hot tache tips. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, ps I loved you at Live Aid. Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Hammer to Fall" was a real hit, wasn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its all the rage at the moment, so have declared your COI on the Queen talk page. Ceoil (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Hopefully no one will ever notice. By the way, that deffo wasn't me editing, as the anon IP from Outer Mongolia, over there! Few people realise that I'm actually 89 these days.... Lucky 123 (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Lightnin Slim.jpg. 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) 18:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, B-bot! Just mind you own business! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Pigcasso, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel entirely free to add to this, extolling the superior quality of the arable land! The difficult bit is finding specifically Monmouthshire sources. Since the growth of Newport, both east and west, that tends to dominate, e.g. Newport Wetlands. I suspect it will also be a difficulty when describing the wildlife under Biodiversity. KJP1 (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. As you knows, I'm just a lowly Newport lad. Not one of you posh "Shire brigade". lol. Concrete jumble, nothing in order, not far from the border! [24] Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to drop in a mention of Tregrug Castle. I knew there was a purpose to your creating that article. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looked so nice in 1793! Needs a bit work now, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Murder of Brianna Ghey has been removed or altered, as it appears to closely paraphrase a copyrighted source. Limited close paraphrasing or quotation is appropriate within reason, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. However, longer paraphrases which are not attributed to their source may constitute copyright violation or plagiarism, and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Such content cannot be hosted here for legal reasons; please do not post it on any page, even if you plan to fix it later. You may use external websites or printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If you own the copyright to the text, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the copyright but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please do not restore text that contains a copyvio/CLOP issue to an article without change. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how would you rephrase that exactly, without changing the meaning? 22 of those 48 words are in quotes. And what is the purpose of this template warning? You think I'm unaware of your revert, when I have already responded at the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems another editor was able to do it just fine. Restoring a copyvio after it's been removed, and was clearly marked as a copyvio in the edit summary without any modification whatsoever is disruptive. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not regard the original material as "a copyvio". Pasting a huge template warning here, without even suggesting or attempting a re-write is also "disruptive". What's the point of such petty scolding? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did regard it as a close paraphrase, as did a couple of CCI editors that I reached out to privately. WP:CV is pretty clear that when you're dealing with a copyvio on partial page content, you revert or otherwise remove the violating text. The person making the removal does not have to re-write it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You "reached out to a couple of CCI editors privately"? Thanks so much for your private diligence. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reached out to a couple of the editors who have a great deal of experience in handling copyright issues at WP:CCI, as I wanted a second opinion on whether or not it constituted CLOP. After they confirmed that it was, I acted in accordance with the copyvio policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please pass on my thanks to your private experts. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've looked very carefully at the edits, and at the cited source. Honestly, it would not have occurred to me that this edit was an issue, and I'm trying to be very sensitive to close paraphrasing issues. Having direct quotes from those people, presented as direct quotes, is not a problem. What I could agree with to some extent is that, in the first sentence, the two direct quotes also come from a single sentence in the source, although the source does not connect them via the phrase "and that she had shown". The source says: "who had shown". I'm not too bothered by the words "had shown". But I suppose that's it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the quotes were presented in the exact same order, with the exact same juxtaposition as the source article. Some of that could have been summarised while being left attributed, as was done by another editor. Or other quotations and different juxtaposition from the source could have been used. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting quotes in the "exact same order" is copyvio now? I see. Perhaps you'd like to test this one over at AN/I or something, just to to be sure? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, close paraphrasing is a copyvio issue. If you want to go to ANI over this, we can, but I consider the immediate issue resolved and think it would be unnecessary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know, an AN/I mountain always tends to get more eyes than a simple molehill. It's the bit about "Presenting quotes in the "exact same order" as the source" that I can't quite get my head around. It might be a public service for editors on the brink of a block for copyvio? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're concerned about avoiding this type of issue in the future, perhaps a discussion at WT:CCI or WT:CP might be more fruitful? The editors who watchlist those talk pages are those most likely to be able to give you good advice on avoiding this issue, as they are the experts in handling this type of problem. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will they give me good advice or just slap a big template on my talk page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect if you started the discussion something like "Hey, an issue came up recently where another editor warned me about adding and restoring a close paraphrase copyvio to an article. Is there any advice you can give me for avoiding CLOP issues in the future?" then I suspect they will give you good advice. The only thing the CCI editors want to see happen is for people to stop adding copyvios to articles. An easy way to prevent that from experienced editors like all of us present in this discussion is to provide you some educational resources so you can learn how to not make the same mistake in the future. That way everyone wins, Wikipedia keeps a productive editor, and the number of copyvios decreases over time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There's also that the quotes were "with the exact same juxtaposition", which I see as more to the point than simply the order in which they appeared. I can agree with that criticism, to some extent. The authors of the source chose to present the two quotes together in that particular way, and it can be argued that you copied that choice. Not block-worthy in my opinion. But something that I hope you can learn from, in terms of good writing style. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, what do original journalists know, heh? We have to try and improve on their choices? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about improving on their choices. It's about not copying their choices, improvement or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if one considers their choices convey exactly the meaning intended? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FFF conveyed the exact meaning, without copying the way that the authors chose to convey it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no longer sure about that. The authors chose to use exact quotes. I think FFF's edit was an improvement as it was more succinct. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make a point, one that I am sure of, that isn't simply about being more succinct, although being more succinct is, indeed, a good thing. It's that the choice that the source authors made about juxtaposing two quotes was a sort of "intellectual property". It's not about the meaning of the quotes, either separately or together. It's about one possible choice, out of many other possible choices, of how to present the two quotes. FFF did write in a more succinct way, but also preserved the meaning without copying that one particular choice. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's essentially the issue that I identified. I see it more as a matter of sloppy writing, than of copyvio. It wasn't so much close paraphrasing, as paraphrasing that could have been less close, as it were. I agree that Martin should not have reverted. I also think that your warning here was needlessly confrontational. You could have just as well explained in your own words (irony of my using that phrase duly noted) why you felt that it was a bad edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can devise an even larger template waring for "sloppy writing, that's not quite copyvio"...private expert advice permitting, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TROUT. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I prefer the templated options like this, as they typically explain the underlying issue and reference relevant policies and guidelines in a far more direct manner. I find the clarity helps in situations like this, as the templates tend to be unambiguous.

Now had Martin left a message on my talk page, or the article talk page after the first removal, I'd have been happy to explain it there without having to issue a warning. However his first action was to restore the text unmodified. Even leaving aside the fact that Murder of Brianna Ghey is a double CTOP article, when the reversion it crossed the line into being warning worthy. So I issued the appropriate warning for the circumstances. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin's very sorry he didn't leave a message on your talk page, perhaps he was too busy responding here. So it's a "double CTOP article"? There may be a few watchers here would might like a further explanation on that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that you're responding here, I'm happy that you are responding here. The issue is that the first action you took after I removed the text was to restore it without modification. Check the timeline of the edits, I removed the content at 22:28 (UTC), you restored it twelve minutes later at 22:40 (UTC), and I issued the warning here three minutes later at 22:43 (UTC). You can't have been too busy responding here at the time you made the revert at 22:40, as the warning and this discussion didn't start until 3 minutes later. At 22:40, you could have started a discussion either on the article talk page, or my talk page, but you didn't. You chose to restore a copyright violation.

So it's a "double CTOP article"? Yes, as can be seen in the talk page banners on Talk:Murder of Brianna Ghey, the article is covered by both WP:GENSEX and WP:BLP. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do WP:GENSEX and WP:BLP relate to my edit? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They apply to all edits to that page. CTOP require editors to hold themselves to, arguably, higher standards than at pages in general. In this case, the main issue is that you reverted the revert, instead of asking for clarification of why you were reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for higher standards, but I'm really not sure how WP:GENSEX and WP:BLP are directly involved in that quote. I would have thought that to satisfy BLP, an edit would need to follow the original quoted speech as closely as possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't directly involved in those quotes, but they don't have to be. Those editing restrictions are defined by the topic areas, but they apply to all edits on the page, because the page falls within those topic areas. That's the way these things work. In "contentious topics", editor conduct is held to a high standard (that's different than saying that writing style is held to a high standard), regardless of whether the individual edit was about those topics directly. That's just how this works.

You raise a point that's well-worth examining here, in terms of whether fidelity to the BLP policy requires direct quotes instead of summaries. It doesn't, so "an edit would need to follow... " is not true. What needs to happen is that the edit should not misrepresent what the living person said or believes. That's not the same thing as quoting them word-for-word. FFF's edit correctly represents what was said, without needing to quote it directly. But I'm glad that you raised the issue, because it's a frequent source of misunderstanding about proper and improper paraphrasing. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When editing an article covered by one or more CTOPs, you need to be very careful that your contributions are policy and guideline compliant. Tensions on these types of articles tend to be fraught at the best of times, as they are often dealing with highly contentious topic matter. Whenever content you add to an article is reverted by an editor in good faith, even if you fundamentally disagree with that reason, the best option is always to start a talk page discussion. Maybe the person who reverted you made an error as we're all (hopefully) only human, maybe they had reasons you don't understand or an understanding of a policy or guideline you weren't aware of, or maybe there's a consensus against a certain piece of content appearing in an article. Regardless of the cause, the best option is to start a talk page discussion, and not immediately restore the challenged content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't regard it as a copyright violation. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do it, but reverting a revert under CTOPs is best avoided. Fraught tensions, yes, indeed. Sigh. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine, you are free to hold that opinion, just as I and other editors are free to hold the opinion that it is a copyvio. You are also fine to express that opinion in a discussion about the issue, as you are doing here. What is not fine however is that you restored that content without making any changes and without starting any discussion whatsoever. Had you presented it in a different way, as Firefangledfeathers did, or had you started a discussion either on my talk page or the article talk page, I wouldn't have had cause to issue you with a warning. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, you have it all timed to perfection, it seems. But we still seem to have a difference of opinion over whether that really was "a copyright violation"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sideswipe, you may prefer templates, but the unarguable fact is that you selected a template that concludes with a bold-font warning about blocking. Please consider what Martin has dealt with, on Wikipedia, over that past year. He has successfully appealed an indefinite block, and worked very hard at cleaning up the CCI. I would have hoped that you would have recognized how that template warning would sound, in this context. I don't blame Martin for reacting defensively. I would have reacted that way, were I in his position. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying, and I'll consider it if this comes up again. However, I would also query whether someone was previously indefinitely blocked for a CCI issue should be restoring text that was removed in good faith for being a copyvio. My issue isn't that Martin is acting defensively in this discussion, as you say it's perfectly understandable in the circumstances. My issue is that rather than start this discussion his first action after the content was removed was to immediately restore it without any modification whatsoever. Even if he fundamentally disagrees that it's a copyright violation, and he is well within his rights to have that opinion, an editor who has been indeffed for copyright violations in the past should know better than to do that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I have any rights to have opinions on copyright any more. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you acted on that opinion when you reverted the removal. As I've said a couple of times now, I would have been perfectly happy to discuss the issue had you started a talk page discussion either on my talk page or the article. I'm always happy to explain the reasoning behind my edits. I'd have also been happy if you'd presented a modified version of the text without the CLOP problem. But the issue is that you didn't start a discussion, nor did you present a different version of the text, you simply restored the removed content without any modification. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for understanding that. Perhaps you might want to consider what I wrote at WP:KNIT#Dealing with it. I wrote that about a different context, but the idea of looking for the best way to de-escalate is a useful one for a situation like this. Really, you could have communicated to Martin that he should stop reverting, without implying that his indef might be reinstated. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the specifics here, M123, I'd love to see you avoid re-reverting when copyvio issues are brought up, even if you disagree with their merit. You could have made your case at the talk page. I love having you back around, and I'd rather see you play it on the safe side. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not regard the original material as "a copyvio". I'd be happy to see as many second opinions (in public, not in private) as you like. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a copyvio. It's a matter of opinion as to whether it was close paraphrasing. FFF's version is significantly better writing than yours, Martin, in the way that it says that she commended her bravery. That's a summary of what the quote was, instead of the quote itself. In my opinion, that's an improvement in this case. You should not have reverted, once you had been reverted, but I can see how the revert of your edit landed, emotionally. Let's all agree that FFF made a good improvement, and I hope that we can all lower the temperature now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't expect my edits to be improved by other editors, I'm really not sure I'd be able to make many edits at all. My sincere thanks go to Firefangledfeathers for the obvious improvement, which might just have happened without all the warnings and discussion? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BBC source: Murdered teenager Brianna Ghey's mother has met a parent of one of her daughter's killers, five weeks after they were sentenced for murder. Esther Ghey said she felt a "connection" to Scarlett Jenkinson's mother, Emma, who had shown "a great deal of bravery." "Both of us are mothers trying to navigate something that nobody should ever have gone through," she said. First attempt: On 11 March 2024 Esther Ghey met Emma Jenkinson, the mother of Scarlett, saying she felt a "connection" to her, and that she had shown "a great deal of bravery". She added, "Both of us are mothers trying to navigate something that nobody should ever have gone through." Adjusted edit: Esther Ghey met Jenkinson's mother in March 2024. Ghey commended the other mother's bravery and said that "Both of us are mothers trying to navigate something that nobody should ever have gone through." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RIP Eric Carmen (August 11, 1949 – March 2024). "Overnight Sensation (Hit Record)" (lead guitar: Wally Bryson). "I don't need no reputation And I'm not in it for the show" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC) p.s. [25][reply]

Hello! I see that you edited Punch Bowl Inn on 5 March to say "It was demolished in June 2021 with the required planning permission...", and to my understanding that's the very opposite of what happened. I just wanted to check before I edit this - was this a simple typo (easily done!), or have I misunderstood the situation here (also easily done!)? Thanks, CLW (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typo. Now fixed. Well spotted. Thanks for telling me. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RIP Stephen Malcolm Ronald Nice (27 February 1951 – 17 March 2024): "Judy Teen" (1974). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Schwede. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Seamus Heaney.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't even know it was a dispute! I have commented. Whenever I see DRN, for some reason I think of drains. Sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nor did I! Remind me again, are we somehow now sworn enemies? If so...damn you, damn you to hell! Bloody Welshman! Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Errrrrm.... "Feinian Wiki Bogtrotter!"® (Will that do? CBA TBH) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way.... "As with Dylan, Thompson's singing is something of an acquired taste" But occasionally he writes a song that's right in the middle of his range, and he can truly belt it out: "Her Love Was Meant for Me"! a real gutsy barnstormer..! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Fenian Bogtrotter" sounds quite romantic, have had worse insults, and not by people who know 13 Rivers. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to check out Alice Roberts' Desert Island Discs. Some cool tunes. Quite a rocker! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [26][reply]

Happy 75th Birthday, Richard Thompson! [27] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) oops![reply]

OGWT 7 March 1975. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[28]

DMacks (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems they really were needed. Probably about 20 years ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True that. DMacks (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least the emergency services don't have to deal with any melted clocks or burning giraffes... Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffe bridge-accident?[29] DMacks (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, how very bizarre! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the year to any date causes no harm, improves clarity, and is suggested by various Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:DATE. And I'm sure you know what "assume" means. Would you please consider undoing your revert. The Wikipedia Community thanks you. Truthanado (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It adds two wholly unnecessary words? We must assume that the average reader has a modicum of common sense and working memory? By all means undo my edit, if you must. I will not revert again. But I fear others might. And please give my kind regards to The Wikipedia Community. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not undo another user's revert. I ask them to do it, as I have in this case.

FYI ... If someone told you that the opening ceremony of the 2020 Summer Olympics was on 23 July, would you know that the opening ceremony actually was on 23 July 2021? Including the year can be very important. Truthanado (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing the 2020 Summer Olympics, we're discussing an event that has just happened?? The sentence in question starts: "Dali had previously travelled from Panama to the U.S., arriving in New York on March 19, 2024, ..." what other years could the following two dates possibly refer to? I think your argument is wholly ridiculous. If you don't wish to revert, by all means raise this at the Talk page and get other opinions. (But thanks so much for asking). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... oh and, "As of March 26, it was being chartered by Maersk" might be better written as: "On the day of the accident, it was being chartered by Maersk"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How long have you been waiting for this opportunity? MIDI (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably since The Good Ship Dali was launched, covered in rotting donkeys and ants, back in 2015.... lol Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dali!. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A feel the bridge swayin'!!" Yay!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Stephen. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases was a real game-changer. A great work. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RIP Gerry Conway (11 September 1947 – 29 March 2024). The first time I heard him play was on the title track of the 1973 Fairport album Rosie. Still have my copy of the Island single. Saw him play at Cropredy many times. [30] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a beautiful, forlorn track. Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one of my all time Fairport favourites. Who knew Swarbrick could really sing. It's just wonderful. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC) .. backing vocals by two ladies called Sandy Denny and Linda Peters and guitar by some Thompson guy..[reply]

I wasn't aware of Linda Thompson. Boy do I like Richard & Linda Thompson - Dimming of the Day (live 1981), esp the way the organ is following the vocal line, but slightly behind. Song is totally going into my heavy rotation. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you'd think "Dimming of the Day" was trad. arr. R. Thompson. But no, he just wrote it. Don't see him playing banjo very often these days! Am guessing that's John Kirkpatrick on concertina. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the finest ever musical duos. She lost her voice as a result of spasmodic dysphonia and is about to release an album of other people singing her songs called Proxy Music! [31]. I Want to See the Bright Lights Tonight was one of the best albums of 1974. If you want to hear song-writing genius, try "The Great Valerio": [32] Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On this first day of April, it occurs to me from reading Martin's talk page, that being a musician must be very dangerous. They keep dropping dead. (Of course, there's the odd dead neuroscientist on my talk page from time to time, but then again, all neuroscientists are odd.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oi! Just watch out, gorgeous! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC) And if you thought my inventory was suspicious, just go check out Gerda's![reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for support for Copland, and please keep watching. I think the key to the revert may be found on Vivaldi. - A few more pics, now from back home --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't decide ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Copland infobox?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's an interesting proposal, mention 3 key works and then say "more", only I'd have trouble to name top 3 by Mozart, and I also saw that little "more" only at the second glance, - what do you think? The history of that infobox is quite unusual: removed with the Bildersturm in 2010, it was implemented again in 2017, and three years later came this short little exchange still on the talk, when a user had noticed that the formal consensus-making had been omitted in the process, and my generous friend Jerome Kohl - long live his memory! - who had reverted many infoboxes personally wrote the words that are music in my ear: "Gosh! That was three years ago", and left it at the other's discretion. That song a few more times, and we could close the sad chapter which has ruined editor relations, - worse than just wasted times. - Back to the undecidedness: no. I meant which portrait of the Hildegard sculpture to select, so I presented all three, taken just before listening in the church she had founded to music she had composed. - Today's story mentions weapons ;) - I love the irony to be presented in the next DYK set. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like to see Appalachian Spring on the Main page today (not by me as you will know, just interested and reviewed), and I also made it my story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, Hildegard's Physica is on the Main page today, and Marian Anderson as my top story (by NBC, 1939). Below (on my talk) three people with raised arms, - and the place is the cherry blossom in Frauenstein. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and I have 2 ITNN noms that need reviews, one urgently --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalevi Kiviniemi looking very good. Do the "Caprice héroique", hommage à Aristide Cavaillé-Coll and the "Souvenir", hommage à Madame Dupré, need sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your support, and both appeared! Please just keep the page watched, - two more to come perhaps, both shortish at present but I'll see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Very well-written articles, Gerda. Well done. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and the next nominated ;) - plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My story today is about a piece composed for the Second Sunday after Easter 300 years ago, and I just returned from a (long) opera about the same age, with soprano Pretty Yende --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

relief: the last of six RD articles in one week is now on the Main page - yesterday a great recital with many anti-war songs by Jewish composers whose music was banned by the Nazis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I consider myself vaguely productive if I get one on in six weeks...😄 Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel obliged for those in German (because I can read the sources), the women (but all these six were men), and the neglected (too many). You may like to listen to the Dulcinea by Palomo (which takes a while until "music" sets in. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Very Spanish! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon. If I do find her, I'll be sure to let you know. I haven't yet checked behind the shed... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123 Are you by any chance a media reporter professionally? Also, your suggestion, "I haven't yet checked behind the shed...," seems to imply something vulgar. Nevertheless, as a child, I won't overthink it. Just to inform you, based on exclusive revelations from insiders, she won't be returning to public duties as before until her medical team advises in that direction. Looking forward to our future collaborations. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. "... exclusive revelations from insiders"? Wikipedia is so glam these days. But so sorry no, no chance. And not that vulgar. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You expected to find William also most probably and even better, another man, maybe. Anyways, I am a child and would leave this conversation here and now itself. Have a great day. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe just rough sleeping under the hedge? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be clear with what you have to say. What does Kate Bush have to do with Catherine?Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you become acquainted with Catherine and the royal family only recently? I have been hooked onto them since 2019 when I was not even a decade old. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: please be clearer. I'd hardly claim that I was acquainted with either of the Kates. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123 Inquiring about your acquaintance with Catherine was to ascertain your familiarity with publicly available information about her, including gossip. I'm confident that none of the adults here have millionaire partners, nor are they publicly recognized. It's improbable that anyone here has dated or married someone like Catherine, if not her. Moreover, I intend to leave this platform soon for a better life in the real world. As I'm quite young and approaching my teenage years, with adulthood on the horizon, I'm eager to hear your perspective on this. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend a move to the real world. You might even date or marry someone like Catherine! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good wishes @Martinevans123. By the way, do you reckon Charlotte will ever take after her mum in terms of looks? Will she turn out to be a brunette like her or a blonde like her father and brothers? Have a great day ahead. Signing off and regards from MSincccc (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least that is what the United States says. They own Park Place and Boardwalk. Maybe we can add more information to it? Awesome Aasim 23:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the Big Apple. Who knew! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bigger (or maybe lesser) Apple which is now one of the most valuable companies in the world got into a similar pesty situation back at the beginning of the end. Nah, I'll just stick to those robotic phones in buildings lined with glass. Or maybe lined with $. And probably the biggest Apple. I don't know. Awesome Aasim 02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting the groovy Scouse one: [33] Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC) get back... (Billy appears at 1:35!)[reply]

I've removed content from Gerry Conway that was a blatant paraphrase of this bio. You might want to demonstrate that you're learning what is acceptable paraphrasing by cleaning up Poor Murdered Woman as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David. I guess you mean Gerry Conway (musician)? I wonder how much of the overlap detected by Earwig at Poor Murdered Woman is due to direct quotation? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written the passage at Gerry Conway, but if you think the paraphrasing is still too close you may wish to remove it again, or perhaps suggest possible alternative text. It seems nomination of articles at WP:ITN/RD may not receive the appropriate level of checking for possible copyvio? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you will probably have seen, Diannaa flagged up a potential problem with a portion of the lyrics at Poor Murdered Woman, and removed them as a preventative measure. But she did not mention any further problems with possible copyvio. If you judge that any portions of the article are in breach of copyright, I would be very grateful if you could remove them, or highlight them in some way, so that a re-write can be attempted. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I made some further revisions on the Conway page, although I'm not sure how much of an improvement my edit was.

I've been thinking about this issue, and an idea occurred to me for something that I hope might be helpful to you. It occurs to me that you have been approaching these edits sort of like reporting what the sources say. Of course it's true that we require our content to faithfully reflect what the sources say, but there's a subtle distinction that I'd like to point out to you. There's a difference between reporting what the sources say, and writing content that is based accurately on the information in the sources. If you approach it in the latter way, instead of the former, I think that will help. So if, for example, you write content about Conway, you should be writing some new (original) text, while making sure that every fact you claim is backed up by the sources. That's not the same thing as telling the reader what the reader would see if the reader went to the source and read that. That may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but I feel like if you keep that distinction in mind, it will help you a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I wasn't really expecting an appraisal of my re-write from David. Although it seems like he didn't intend to revdel the first version. If you have any suggestions of where there is unacceptable paraphrasing at Poor Murdered Woman, I'd be very grateful. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I looked at the Earwig test that David ran, and here is a refined version, looking just at the most probable source: [34]. (The source: [35].) First, I'll point to some things that are obviously not problems, because they are just phrases that don't lend themselves to rewording, and are merely brief bits of a few words: "Rev. Charles J. Shebbeare, at Milford, Surrey", "Mr. Fairs, a brickmaker of Leatherhead Common", and "The Albion Country Band, No Roses". And likewise for phrases from the lyrics of the song, which I take to be public domain. None of that is a problem.

So here are some passages that I do think need to be fixed:

1. "a true story, the actual events of which were reported in The Times on Tuesday 14 January 1834."
2. "and reissued on the compilation albums"
3. "in the original album's sleeve notes"

Now, that said, after looking very carefully, I think it's a lot better than what it looked like at first glance. That's because the extensive passages picked up by Earwig are actually direct quotes from commentators, that are fully identified and sourced as such on the page, such as the block quote at the end of the Background section, and the quote from the sleeve notes in the first bullet point of the Recorded versions section. There's nothing wrong with any of that, and honestly, I don't think anyone would have brought it up, except for the fact that you are, understandably, under close scrutiny. But, the situation being what it is, I think you can revise #1–3 that I listed. Let me know when you do, and I'll be happy to check it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, close scrutiny. I think I might have to preserve that very over-used two-word phrase "The Times" intact. If only the article was in US English, I might even manage "January 14, 1834, which was a Tuesday". I'll let you know... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [36] (Herman Yorks on saxophone)[reply]

... "in the original album's sleeve notes"? That's copyvio? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it's overly close paraphrasing. Think of another way to identify which album it was. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for context, the source has:

"Martin Carthy sang Poor Murdered Woman on his 1968 album with Dave Swarbrick, But Two Came By, and reissued on the compilation albums This Is... Martin Carthy and A Collection. Martin Carthy commented in his original album's sleeve notes:"

The current text is:

"* 1968, Martin Carthy (guitar, vocal) and Dave Swarbrick (mandolin), But Two Came By, Topic Records. It also appears on the compilation albums: This Is... Martin Carthy (1971), A Collection (1999), and Essential (2011). Carthy comments in the original album's sleeve notes:"

Maybe I should use "liner notes", as that provides a direct link to the appropriate article. Perhaps I could put "Carthy comments in the liner notes for his 1968 album:", although that does repeat the year.

And "On Tuesday 14 January 1834, the events related in the story were reported in The Times." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of "liner notes", but I like it. Using the year was what I was hinting at, so I support that change too. I'm not bothered by the repeat.

I think your revision of #1 is also an improvement. I think it can be further improved by making it into two sentences. Something like: "On Tuesday 14 January 1834, an actual murder was reported in The Times. The song lyrics appear to have been based on that." You could perhaps improve on my second sentence in terms of attribution. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks. But you're too kind. I'm meant to be "demonstrating that I'm learning", remember. Maybe we need to check with David first. It's a surprise to get a post here for the first time in 17 years. Maybe "mentoring can't solve this" and I don't even deserve to be in main space? Glad to hear you're "not bothered by the repeat". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should feel free to make these edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have now adjusted. Thanks for your constructive help and support, which is always much appreciated. Not sure I yet feel as free as Roger did in Tommy, but still. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) (...as Jean-Jacques Burnel from The Stranglers once said, "Wikiman is born free, and everywhere he is in chains". "sob")[reply]

Looks like we disagree on something. I understand your point about this event occurring 11 years ago but I feel like when we state, "At the time", that makes the reader think that it no longer is a reliable aircraft. Maybe instead of saying, "At the time, the Boeing 777 had a good reputation for safety", we can rephrase it to, "The safety record of the Boeing 777 was favorable then and continues to be so". Eliminating the sentence completely might also be a way to end this conflict. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Creator. Thanks for your note. The first part is fine, but the second part looks like editorial commentary, tending towards promotion. Best to discuss at Talk:Asiana Airlines Flight 214 as it's very likely other editors may want to consider and possibly comment? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will copy and paste my claim in the article's talk page and I’ll mention you. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I have commented over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the articles should now treat OJ Simpson "officially" as the killer of Goldman and Brown, going by the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources in serious, in-depth scholarship and journalism. I have raised the discussion on Simpson's talk page.92.17.198.220 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows. OJ's not gonna tell us. But..... why me? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just presumed that you would know about it a lot, particularly as it is a controversial case and a huge crime one. If you don't, I am sorry. It is just that you were so helpful with the Savile discussions that I thought you could be able to help in some way. Sorry about confusion. 92.17.198.220 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks or asking. Alas, I know very little. I watched clips of the car chase on TV and I decided there and then he was probably guilty. Gloves or no gloves. So maybe a bit biased. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) It's pretty obvious that he was the actual killer, but as a matter of WP policy, the content should present it as attributed, such as "according to [cited source], Simpson was the real killer." The fact remains that he was acquitted in the criminal trial. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"... don't look any further" (Warning: features the actual trial gloves) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC) haha, always makes me laugh. still got my original vinyl 12", I'll have you know![reply]

I am probably over fussy on this point, but I wouldn't consider this "tweak" [37] to meet the very strict criteria at WP:MINOR. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to self-revert? Or self-revert and re-add as a non-minor? I didn't think the wording "saying she had told authorities false information" was very good, so I thought I was just making a simple improvement to grammar. But having looked again at The Telegraph source, are you able to pin down this phrase to something there? As I am not even sure that I can. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to the edit: just an 'in principle' thing. And not so egregious that I think a self revert is necessary: just a shot across the bows. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. But is it a valid reflection of the source? Is it even needed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]