Martinevans123

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. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. 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! [1] 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

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. [2]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) [3]Reply

Happy 75th Birthday, Richard Thompson! [4] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) oops!Reply

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

[5]

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?[6] 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. [7] 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! [8]. 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": [9] 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

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

thank you for listening - today's means check a birthday child's evaluation (see my talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

now images of a flock of sheep that I met by chance on the 300th birthday of cantata Du Hirte Israel, höre, BWV 104 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just uploaded thousands of flowers to thank you for improving Andrew Davis, - the shortest so far from knowing that he died to Main page presentation. Did you watch the video? - How would I describe the weather pictured? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No thanks needed. Very small tweaks from me. Did I miss the video? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

yes, it seems that you missed the video, - you might watch my top story, and look, and see an external link saying "interview". That's the easy way to not miss tomorrow's as well (and yesterday, there were even two). If not, and I ask about a bio, you may find the way at the article's bottom ;) - and yes, thanks are never needed but I like to thank. Very rarely I'd like to have a click for "I dislike this edit". - Did I place enough commas? How would I describe such weather? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, nice video, thanks. Sorry I missed the sheep. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Did you see them now? The music to go with them is - you guessed it - at the bottom of the cantata article (which I would have liked to see on OTD today (premiered 23 April 1724), but the team their seems on vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Errrrmm... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

not me, bäääh - every time I type "not lost" I think of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

today's turned into entertainment (yt at the bottom of his article) -- the latest pictures capture extreme weather (or how would you describe it?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have again a rather sad story on the Main page, - yesterday's double bass story was more fun. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

for the finale: today you can look at the last three stories or "music" on my talk: the same topics, Youth Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine, Samuel Kummer and (pictured) one row of 8 double basses and another of 5 bassists ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well you know what they say.... "all the right articles, in all the right places"! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

But is it all about that other bass? [10] --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Eat 'ur heart out, Reverend Al" lol. Interesting arrangement. First Talking Heads and now talking fish... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, I can talk, but I really can't sing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 30 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: [11] 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: [12]. (The source: [13].) 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) [14] (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" [15] 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

Or you could just cancel any Talk page discussion as "off topic", of course. Some editors might be "howling" if you did. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Martin! Yes, quite. Is this documented somewhere? It is driving me redacteding nuts where people who were excellently taught in high school, and I am not being sarcastic there, get on a mission to "correct" stuff in BrE which I believe does not need correcting. I see it so much; it's fine in AmE, sure; it seems to me to be a redacteding horrible overcorrection in BrE. Is it a known and recognized issue? It's a bit like the "that and which" thing which I think is another one where the rules are not the same across the Atlantic.

Or, another option ... I am simply wrong! Wouldn't be the first time. Will not be the last time. Helppppp! DBaK (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

In, American, English, it seems, the more commas, the better, and, one can, use them, as much as, one might, possibly, want to. I had a recent rant at Talk:David Černý#Punctuation (where it hasn't even been agreed which Engvar applies!!) But note that User:SMcCandlish, who is very knowledgeable on MOS, says: "Commas really are not a MOS:ENGVAR matter." I'm still quite confused. (No change, there, then). AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!! etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oops, thanks ... started reading that, suddenly had strong urge to take some paracetamol and have a nice little lie-down. I'm not absolutely sure that it's not Engvar, but I do get it that SMC knows rather a lot more than I do. Aargh indeed. Aargh, indeed. In 2024 I went aargh. In 2024, I went aaargh ... DBaK (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Something that is Engvar: it's paracetamol over there, but acetaminophen here in the colonies. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Q. Where did all the jungle commas go? A. The parrots ate 'em all. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This keeps coming up, so I guess I'll rough-draft an essay here. A bit disorganized and too long, but it's a start. Nothing is an ENGVAR matter unless it can be shown with reliable sources (on English usage in particular) that something, such as the spelling of colo[u]r, is a consistently documented, invariant rule found more or less universally across a particular variety of English. There actually aren't a whole lot of these points, given the size of the language. (I cannot remember a case of a punctuation matter being one of them, with the sole and very well-documented exception of dropping of "." from contraction abbreviations in British English when the short form begins and ends with the same letters as the full word: "Dr", "St", "Ltd", but "Prof.", "Co." Some news publishers and many bloggers often do it also to the truncation abbreviations, but this is directly countermanded by all British academic style guides and even several of the news ones.) MOS:COMMONALITY is really far more important: it's an actual reader-facing goal, while ENGVAR is little more than an internal dispute-avoidance mechanism. Also important are WP:NOT#BLOG and WP:NOT#NEWS (in particular: "Wikipedia is not written in news style"). A subjective feeling one might have that an uncodified practice might lean one way in one country but the other way in a different place doesn't qualify as an ENGVAR matter, or we'd spend most of our time engaged in pitched ENGVAR-themed "style battles" that mostly could never be objectively resolved. Fighting about such things is what MoS is trying to prevent not encourage. Comma usage varies primarily by publication type, with journalism, marketing, and blogging dropping as many as possible (and more than is actually practical) while academic writing uses many more of them for clarity and precision, especially since most such writing requires communicative precision and has an international audience (as does WP of course, on both counts). Encyclopedic writing is a form of academic writing or at least at the fuzzy border of it.

If one is approaching WP from an "I want to delete every single comma I can possibly get away with removing", then one is not approaching encyclopedic writing with the most appropriate mindset. (Same goes if one's approach is "I want to write as traditionally [insert country adjective here] as possible, according to my perception." MoS's worst disrupter of all time was one of those, though an American-supremacist in that case.) The sensible goal of encyclopedic writing is communicating as effectively as possible to the largest audience (and WP really has the broadest audience in history). We simply don't have a goal of getting maximum possible concision at all costs (WP:NOT#PAPER is also relevant in that regard, and frequently cited against attempts to force unnecessary and unhelpful concision/compression/abbreviation/omission of various kinds). The WP:Use common sense approach is to include any comma by which immediate comprehensibility is improved, even if only slightly and even if only for a subset of readers. It is always going to be the case that encyclopedic writing has more commas in it – still, even after one or another of you denudes it of commas that you don't prefer – than some subset of our readers would like to see. This is a given, since various of the youngest more-or-less-adult users of our language would prefer none at all; their terrible writing can be seen all over social media, usually also missing apostrophes and other punctuation as well as capital letter. The use of a comma after introductory phrases is simply clearer formal writing (instead of marketing or, increasingly, news-style hyper-compression). The sort of writing that drops commas like mad is designed for two things: to be output as fast as possible (to meet news deadlines or for speed of e-content firehosing), and to be as skimmable for keywords as efficently as possible (a goal of advertising, social-media posting, and most journalism, since such material is rapidly eye-scanned by most readers, only for a few seconds, and not read in any detail unless something very firmly grabs someone's attention). Many fiction writers (regardless of nationality) also drop a lot of commas, the more so the more they are trying to ecapsulate casual and contemporary spoken English in their dialogue writing; and of course fiction is also generally read at a fast rate. Encyclopedic material is usually read in some detail and requires more mental parsing (even if we now have user-study proof that readers will navigate to sections of interest rather than read whole articles top-to-bottom in most cases). We take pains to be precise and clear, down to any possibility of misleading nuance or incorrect inference, or even just clumsy structure that forces some readers to struggle to parse it.

It has nothing to do with Americans or North Americans in particular [I learned to read and write in Oxfordshire, as an anecdotal aside], and dropping of the comma you don't like is frequent in American advertising and American newswriting, just as such omission is found in the same sorts of material in the UK and elsewhere. The retention of that comma makes for clearer parsing (by all readers, the more so the more complex or potentially ambiguous the construction), which is why it is more often retained in academic writing regardless of country (though over 100,000 academic journals in publication today, it is not difficult to find some academic material that leans toward journalism levels of comma dropping). Maybe more to the real point here, the presence of a comma in "According to Smith, [claim here]" or "In March 2017, Jones [did whatever]" or "Leaving Alexandria, McNabb moved to [wherever]" is understood by 100% of English readers and there is no dialect in which they are an error. That is, it confuses no one, is mis-parsed by no one, has demonstrable benefits for some (many, actually), and has no cost other than a tiny glyph. Without those commas, the third is easily misparsed as a woman's name "Alexandria McNabb", and the first could easily have a similar effect depending on what came after "Smith" (e.g. "According to Smith Taylor & Francis [did something]"). While the middle example isn't likely subject to such "I had to go back and re-read this sentence again to make any sense of it" problems, the same construction should be used consistently (especially since dropping the comma in one case is apt to confuse various well-meaning people into going on a deletion rampage to enforce a much less helpful consistency in the opposite direction.

Misc. side points: Comma usage also varies noticeably across time, with far more commas (often downright weird ones that serve no apparent purpose) being used typically in Victorian to c. 1920s writing than later, and somewhat fewer used today than around maybe the 1970s. But there is a limit to which commas can be excised without significantly sacrificing clarity, especially to readers who are not 100% fluent (and an argument can be made that this limit was already reached in typical academic writing by around the 1990s at the latest; material from that era reads exactly the same as papers published today, but material from a generation or so earlier is quite different in various ways, and a generation back further it's downright ponderous and often pompous). PS: In my quite frequent reading of 19th-century source material, I find that the former excessive use of commas, of the sort Martin exaggerates above for humour, actually was prevalent more in British than American works of that era. It's also notable that the serial comma (a different comma that some people don't like, and about which people make incorrect ENGVAR claims all the time, and contradictory ones) is nicknamed both Oxford comma and Harvard comma, because it's not particular to either national dialect but to an academic register. I think much of what is going on here, as with some British editors' attempts to get WP to use "eg" and "ie", is an incorrect belief that what they see in various British newspapers, the ones with a style of typographic hyper-compression, is "British style" when it is actually the style of a few British news publishers, and is actually contrary to the advice in major British style guides, which lean more toward academic English, as does the American Chicago Manual of Style. However, this has gotten a bit muddled with the increasingly excoriated Waddingham edition of New Hart's Rules and Butterfield edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage, both of which injected a bunch of "let chaos reign" excessive descriptivism, often failing to actually be style guides at all, by declining in many cases to recommend anything specific any longer when presented with conflicting usages attestable in various recent-ish British publcations, but without regard to publication type/register/genre/audience, or quality/reputation, or editorial control level (which matters more and more with every passing year with the "internetification" of news leading to more direct pushing of content straight from journalists, often foreign contractors, direct to news websites with less and less any editorial supervision, and what little of it remains devoted almost entirely to avoiding factual blunders not to enforcing style; this is why the typo rate in even the most high-profiles newspapers/sites has shot up by an order of magnitude in the last decade or so). These mid-2010s versions of those "style guides" are engaging in a form of false equivalence, treating every occurrence of every variation as if equally preferable/utilitarian. But since those crap volumes came out (and MoS is not based on them in any way, but on the previous 2000s editions), there has been a notable uptick in attempts to get WP to write like UK news writing in particular, in a number of ways, based on untenable ENGVAR claims. It's much like claiming that the often stylistically weird writing of The New York Times and The New Yorker "is" American English, when in reality it's nothing but similar in-house style preferences of two particular commerical entities (in large part for "brand identity" reasons), which don't even have entirely American ownership, staffing or readership. That's all (substituting in the word "British") usually true today of the major UK-headquartered news publishers. PS: I find it curious that DBaK above is complaining about supposedly un-British writing yet used "recognized" with a "z". If that's a deliberate choice to use (or a habit of using) Oxford spelling, then the same preferences would also imply acceptance of both the serial comma and the comma after introductory clauses, since they're also favoured by OUP.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is "In 1990" an "introductory clause", or just the first two words of a sentence? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's unquestionably the first two words, although those first two words do a different kind of work than do "Well, it's". I just looked at our page on clause, and it made me want to say AARGH (although we might want to check with Santa, or maybe Mrs. Clause, about what to make of it). So I think "In 1990" serves some sort of introductory role at the start of a sentence, but it's one where there is no absolute logical basis for saying that it is, or isn't, just the first two words. Consequently your edit at the Annie Lennox page is a matter of personal preference, rather than absolute right or wrong. I debated whether or not to put a comma after "Consequently". Would have been OK to do so, but not required, so I deferred to what I would guess you would prefer on your talk page.

I think that SM's explanation is an excellent one, and I particularly like the part about "Alexandria, McNabb". Looking at your edit at the Lennox page, none of the comma removals raises such a problem, so I think that your edit was equally "right" as would have been not making the edit at all.

As you know, I'm half American and half human, and I think the commas in this sentence are for the better. Personally, I usually do put a comma after "In 1990" and the like. Eng-var or not, if EEng were in this discussion, he'd say you were a comma chameleon. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

"In [timeframe or place]," is one of English's stock introductory dependent (also called subordinate) clauses, along with "According to [source],", "If you ask [name or pronoun]," "Until/After/Before/While/etc. [condition]," and a zillion others. Nothing mysterious about it. Any linguist (or English teacher for that matter, and most of them are not linguists by training but have degress in education and/or literature) will tell you this is a dependent clause. The "It's" in "It's going to rain" is not a clause at all; it's an integral part of the independent (and main, and only) clause that forms the sentence. The "Well, it's" in "Well, it's raining" isn't a clause unto itself; rather, "Well[,]" in this construction (versus something like "I don't feel well" or "My cousin fell down the well" or "They performed well") is also an introductory dependent clause of the same sort we've been talking about (note the typical comma after it), albeit a short one; while the "its" there is again not a clause of any kind unto itself but just a fragment of the independent clause "it's raining". The "As you know[,]" above is another introductory dependent clause; some would write that (and many or even all the rest of them) without the comma after the depenedent clause, but this is not demonstrably helpful to anyone, and is demonstrably unhelpful to many, because it makes the sentence structure harder to parse without having to re-read it and think about what the intended meaning was.

There are some dependent clauses (strings of words that are cohesive semantic units but which do not stand on their own as sentences) which never take a following comma; these usually have "which" or "that" after them (in that role, technically a relative impersonal pronoun but acting semantically as a form of conjunction, though even linguists of English will debate about such definitions). E.g.: "I think that Jenny is too tired to go out"; note how "I think that, Jenny is too tired to go out" would be an error in all dialects (though it's actually a pretty common error among inexperienced writers). The "Jenny is too tired to go out" part is obviously an independent clause (can stand on its own as a sentence), and "I think that" is not a necessary fragment of it (like "It's" is in "It's raining now"), and it does not form a valid sentence on its own. [Well, not with the intended meaning. If I ask "Do you think this, or that?", perhaps pointing to two options on a chalkboard, you could grammatically answer "I think that", probably will stress on the final word, and purely a pronoun use of "that", without a conjunctive function.] So, it is necessarily a dependent clause (and an introductory one); it just happens to be in a form in which commas are not conventional (anywhere, ever). However, "I think Jenny is too tired to go out" is something different; it's two independent clauses ("I think" and "Jenny is too tired to go out" are both valid sentences); there, it's probably two loosely coordinated ind. clauses. [However, the relationship might depend on meaning/emphasis: "I think Jenny is too tired to go out", versus what you think about it, is a different sentiment, with the first part as the main clause, from "I think Jenny is too tired to go out", versus Andrew's energy level, and so on.] That/which/who[se] can also be used to form relative or adjectival clauses, and when/while/before/after/since/until/where/wherever/how/as/like/etc. can be used to form adverbial clauses, but we needn't get into that here.

PS: Some other one-word introductory dependent clauses that generally need commas (despite an example existing in this discussion without one) are "However," "Thus," "Ergo," and "So," (in the thus/ergo sense). If the comma is dropped, the meaning can markedly change: "However, my lost dog found his way home" is a sentence meaning that the dog found his way home and that this is being contrasted with a previous statement like "I accidentally left my dog at the park". But "However my lost dog found his way home" is a sentence fragment indicating "Through whatever means by which my dog found his way home ...". Likewise: "So, your cat won't be lonely" is a sentence meaning "Thus/ergo, your cat won't be lonely" following on some previous statement that purports to lead to this conclusion ("When cat-sitting for you, I'll come over for an entire hour every day"); meanwhile, "So your cat won't be lonely" is a fragment meaning "For the reason/purpose/goal of your cat not being lonely," after which would follow something related to this idea, like "I'll come over for an entire hour every day when cat-sitting for you." In both second cases, the phrases are introductory dependent clauses and should have commas: "However my lost dog found his way home, I'm so glad he's back." An argument can be made that the commas in introcuctory "Thus," and "Ergo," are not strictly necessary since such ambiguity is not usually available with those particular words (though "thus" has some nearly-obsolescent alternative uses like "place it thus", and common mid-clause usage like "... it is thus desirable to ..."). But as noted above, if the comma on an introductory dependent clause that typically takes a comma (i.e. doesn't end with "that" or "which") is omitted in one case "just because you can get away with it" in some particular contextual instance, this is likely to wrongly signal to someone that they should edit the material to strip out all of them "to be consistent", often with results that are directly detrimental to reader experience. It is better to just use them consistently in this kind of writing, both to give readers more clarity and consistency, and to prevent editorial actions that are at cross purposes to each other (or to one another, if you like that phrase better). In this project, we have to keep both numerous readers and numerous other writer-editors in mind, which I suppose is rather unusual.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

How did SMcC know I was aiming for "MoS's worst disrupter of all time"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Heh. You have long way to go to reach that level! It was something to behold.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sheesh, and I thought I was ranting. But SMcC is on a higher plane, isn't he. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cut my teeth on a decade of BBSes and Usenet back in the day. And I type faster than professional secretaries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I almost get what you said, Stanton. If only you'd used a few more commas... Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have to admit, commas do make things a bit more exciting... --ARoseWolf 11:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was enthralled by Stanton's essay. I'm not sure I could stand any more excitement... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ikr, it was so big and full of thrilling punctuation. And the wikilink to Oxford spelling at the end was so, ahh, dreamy. --ARoseWolf 11:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. I was perilously close to being thoroughly overtaken by an attack of the vapours. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fear not; I always keep a vial of smelling salts in the watch pocket of my waistcoat.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

• "I promise, to not remove commas, which I don't like, which are not even American, but have been used, for the benefit of, at least, one reader, who might find them useful, in understanding Wikipedia." Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) (p.s. I can confirm that my cat won't be lonely)Reply

  p.p.s. I'd never remove a comma, in any case, "just because I can get away with it", in some particular contextual instance. But if I did remove one and this gave a "wrong signal" to someone, that they should edit the material to strip out all of them "to be consistent", I think that's their problem, not mine. I'm not trying to give any signals to anyone. I'm just trying to reduce punctuation clutter. 😄 Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  "I promise, to not remove...": Should be "I promise, not to remove...". Split infinitive. Now, you, have, to, promise, not, to, pratfall, again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Ah yes, American TV at its finest. I often picture you as Snorky. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Oh, if you really want American TV like that, you should see Snooki. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I was also thinking of Fleegle. But I guess he's too deep. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  If there's anything that TV in the US definitely is not, it's "deep". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  What about film, sir fish-that-tryptos? --ARoseWolf 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Well, I forgot about The Deep (TV series), you riveter. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Well, ya know.... you've got your Donald and we've got our Boris. But hey, your star is still pulling in the crowds! Probably all just a storm in a G-cup. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Wanna trade? Really! Please, please! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Regrettably, The Right Honourable Mr Johnson has now been permanently retired to the Home for Distressed Gentlefolk, at an unknown location in the West Country. But he may be taking bookings for the coming panto season. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC) "King of the World"Reply

  Crinkley Bottom – I love it! My new favorite place name! Do the Soggy Bottom Boys perform there? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Only after a particularly harrowing division lobby. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  An English teacher I know tells me often that commas are more art than science. We have long chats about subtext in dialogue too. Communication can be so difficult - easy to mess things up. I'm sure commas help. Consider this guy who started an RfC and made it so that supports meant removing text and opposes meant including it. Don't think more commas could have saved that one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Master Stanton says: "In this project, we have to keep both numerous readers and numerous other writer-editors in mind, which I suppose is rather unusual." And there's the rub, I guess, as they say in Denmark... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) p.s. I was thinking of moving on to semi-colons next....Reply

  Be careful, you might end up getting a semicolonoscopy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  It's a game that can't be won. I went through a long period where I decided not to use any commas at all; people complained. In response, I started using commas in a more judicious manner, providing them for the reader on an ad hoc basis. People in the UK complained. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  A "game"!? How very dare you!! ...you know, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  commas are more art than science: Yes, that's the ultimate point I was making. It's artful to add them when they help, and when they form a pattern that overall is helpful (even if in one exact instance the difference might not matter), but not artful either to take a "kill 'em all" approach, or to inject them in constructions where nothing useful happens, as was so often the case in Vicitorian to early 20th-c. writing. I saw something in a 1910s book the other day that came off almosmt as bad as Martin's comma-after-every-word jokes. I don't recall the specifics, but it was along the lines of "Johnson, in his book, Title Here, wrote, of Smith, that his position, in favor of the first of these claims, was (McNabb's evidence, presented in Other Title Here, 1854, notwithstanding) no longer tenable, entirely." And the rest of the material was like that. It felt as if seeing the output of someone trying to write while suffering a series of small seizures.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I'll forgive anything in any Victorian book as long as it does not seek to lecture me further on the lip shapes or tusks, or feeding habits or oil value of North Atlantic whales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I'd never espouse any "kill 'em all" approach. Most prescriptive grammar, of whichever persuasion, is pretty misguided. But I have a problem with such uses as: "In 1823, she published a novel." What grammatical or other function does that comma serve? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Introductory clause, innit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Ah thanks. Now I understand what it means! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC) That Stanton McCandlish is just too clever by half! (Well, by 0.4999recurring, anyway)Reply

  I just did this: [16]. Sound of evil laughter. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Ooo err (just a little bit). Martinevans123 (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see you've reverted my edits. Can you provide any evidence that Andy, Owen etc are English despite the sources saying otherwise? DanielTokenhouse (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's right. I found your one new source wholly lacking. Best to discuss at those respective Talk pages, I'd suggest. But I think the onus is on you to provide actual WP:RS sources that they are "Irish". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

An aphorism tailor-made for Wikipedia editors? With or without the wiki quotation marks, one of his best, maybe even the best? Made No 6 on the US RnB chart and was only beaten, by "A Real Mother for Ya", some 15 years later, even without a solo. Just supremely wonderful. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

And he was still playing it in his set, 15 years later, at Onkel Pö´s Carnegie Hall Hamburg, (with some very tasty brass)... but still with no solo! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Martin, you've been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Use of user talk page while blocked, doesn't look like you were pinged. That is a spinoff from a now-closed discussion at WP:AARV here, don't know if you were aware of that one either. Thanks for the ping about Harry Dunn, but I have no memory of that discussion so don't think I'll be much help. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you P-K3 for that kind courtesy. If User:XMcan wishes to me respond, I can do. I'm quite happy to elucidate on the circumstances of my own Talk page at that time. Including the wholly mistaken notion that I was requesting proxy edits from other editors. But the most relevant commenters would probably be the blocking admins. However, I really don't think any comments from me would help matters very much over there. It seems to have been quite a huge amount of fuss over a 24 block. I would have to agree, though, that practice on TPA varies greatly from case to case. Regarding the Harry Dunn page, yes it was a single comment over four years ago! I only pinged you as DeFacto was suggesting I might be vote-stacking. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

User:Serial Number 54129 similarly. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Martin; I can't remember the precise discussion now, but rest assured I was not advocating against what you were doing/or advocating for stronger measures (I believe TPA is pulled far too frequently, personally, whether it means to or not generally leaving the impression that access is pulled because an admin just can't be arsed to deal with it. Which is, I think, a) very poor and b) very common.

To clarify, my use of you as an example was purely incidental to the main thrust of my argument: that Thryduulf was completely wrong and, more to the point, already knew it. Sorry for the confusion. (Actually a better example might have been Gerda and that Francis fella, come to think of it.) Cheers! ——Serial Number 54129 14:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

just curious if I should know what this is about, SN? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Serial. Thanks so much for the rapid reply and explanation. No worries. If you remember, in my own case, I had no argument with the original block, and tried to make that clear from the start. But then I had to appeal against, what I saw as, a "drive-by" admin revocation of my TPA, which occurred (as far as I was aware) without any discussion at all with the original blocking Admin. If my appeal email to that new Admin had not been published, then I think it's 99% certain I would not be here now. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

In case you haven't seen it, I think the misimpression at the block policy talk page has been cleared up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. I had not seen that. I'm very grateful to those editors, including yourself, who have explained what happened. Many, if not most, of my posts, were replies to other editors asking for information or making helpful suggestions. As I said at the time, not being able to edit any other page than one's Talk page, is extremely stressful. Maybe it's purposely designed to be so. But it might be an idea, in some cases, if Admins could allow access to perhaps one or two nominated articles and/or article talk pages, in addition, to allow a blocked editor to demonstrate that they have understood the block and collaborate with other editors. But of course this might be beyond the technical capabilities of the project and/or might require too much Admin time to organise. Who am I to offer advice to anyone. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

RIP Mike Pinder. Now gone. The days before Ray Thomas looked like an Italian waiter on acid. Some very groovy dancing going on here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

"The Best Way to Travel" - from Colour Me Pop (14 September 1968). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

... and RIP Duane Eddy: Peter Gunn (saxophone: Steve Douglas) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Martinevans123:, Would you be interested in joining Draft:WikiProject food and drink industry in EnglandChefBear01 (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there any free wine involved? [17] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

For a second I thought that said Cheese. --ARoseWolf 20:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

In fact yes, it's John Cheese. (... just put me down for a small Stinking Bishop, would you) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Don't forget the crackers. --ARoseWolf 20:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Make mine non-vegan. --Hives, the butler (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Don't tell Tryp. Rainbow is my favorite. --ARoseWolf 20:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do they even fit in the bag?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I promise not to tell. [18]. (But tell me if there is any free booze!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Martinevans123:, there are currently 14 related articles with more potentially needed.ChefBear01 (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Martinevans123:, @ARoseWolf: @Tryptofish:, please add your name to the list in Draft:WikiProject food and drink industry in England if you are interested.~~ ChefBear01 (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, ChefBear01, for your very kind invitation. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

ChefBear01, thank you for the invitation. I'm afraid I would be of little use to a wikiproject about food and drink in England. About the only English food I know is fish and chips because we also have that in Alaska. Well, we have pubs here too. --ARoseWolf 19:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not forgetting our great British baking... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC) And Chefbear, I do need to declare a national bias here.Reply

Perhaps you are biased about rabbits, as well? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, boyo. And for Crimbo, we all love a horse's head on a pole. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Who you callin' boyo? And did you just call Jimbo a criminal? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd recommend "One Spliff a Day". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [19]Reply

Yes, and cheers to food and drink! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Reply

Of course, nothing wrong with the small variety. Don't want to appear sizeist! [20] Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Martin! I am not sure why, but I thought that this might amuse you. Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes, St Jory. I know it well! Often have a few days away there, and often pop into the old "Barleycorn" for a few jars! Safe bruh! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do hope that you have not been involved in any dodgy goings-on, assisting Scottish policemen into large wicker figures, and the like. One can take these local citizenship initiatives a little too far … DBaK (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

"This is a local pub, for local people!" Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC) (... local honey also available)Reply

Nasty!!!! I'm off for a little nap now till I feel better. DBaK (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let's face it, DBaK, you've got what it takes, baby! Mmmmmmmm, swingin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC) ... what a truly, truly wonderful record that is.Reply

Great track! DBaK (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Recorded in the same session as that one, which is almost as good. **kiss-kiss** lol Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC) "Benton's beautifully poised melodic weaving is the perfect compliment to Washington's sassy and punchy delivery. The playful strings and toe-tapping rhythm section keep the whole thing moving in a gentle rock-a-bye groove!!"Reply

Gobshite's article is now live. Thanks for the copyedits yesterday. Ceoil (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Didn't realise there were so many! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you ask me there are too many. He is surely the primary topic - both a farmer "and" singer, with connections in Kildare.Ceoil (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

On the bicentenary of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, I remember our recent uplifting choral concert in pictures, on my user page and in my concerts (leading to the two at the church's article). The closest was in the paper. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today is the Feast of the Ascension for which Bach composed his oratorio, - perhaps watch a bit how the closing movement was performed in Bach's church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Magdalena Hinterdobler is on the Main page today, together with an opera that reviewers deemed not interesting and too obscure for our general readers. The soprano thought differently, - listen and see. - Also on the Main page: a TFA by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

did you listen and see? - today's story has a pic of a woman holding her cat, a DYK of 5 years ago - the recent pics show 2 orange tip butterflies --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Amazing. That ceramic cat looks real to me! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

real: yesterday's story remembered an oratorio world premiere I was in, conducted by the composer --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I heard lovely chamber music today, and the DYK mentions "profoundly human" singing (that you can watch), connected to a place where we'll sing in September --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I liked seeing Erschallet, ihr Lieder on the Main page today, 310 years after the first performance! We sang it in 2000. Today's program was easier but also spirited. I found a nice video of "I will sing with the spirit", with nature photography, - enjoy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old OTD. - There's a cute yt of a family concert in the singer's article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today's story about Willi Brokmeier still needs support for RD, - don't miss 1972 video ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see he's now made it there. There's a video?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

in my story - almost always this year, btw --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

(now it is, sorry) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for intruting. I clicked on your page by accident and noticed we have the same birthday :). Don't know why I felt to share that, hah. I guess the coincidence struck me. 95.168.120.7 (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Shame you don't have a User page, or an account. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today's story is my little contribution to Trinity Sunday, with a church named after the Trinity (which I'd have liked to see pictured, and what would be a good description of that kind of facade? "splendid" was reverted as not neutral) and a cantata Bach conducted 300 years ago for the occasion (having composed it 9 years earlier). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, it looks quite splendid to me. As a child I had always thought the words for "Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty" were "God in three parsons"! It's not about this Holy Trinity, is it ... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Contrast: 29 May 1913: The Rite of Spring - today's story, actually something I saw at that place in a revival, literally "down to earth". - Do you remember the infobox discussion 100 years after the premiere, often mentioned in the arbcase? - Today a user who returned after several years said that nothing changed. Would you agree? I wouldn't ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

What a very bizarre suggestion at Joseph Haydn! It might have taken me seven or eight years to dream up that one... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a great satire ;) - Today's story is about Samuel Kummer, one of five items on the Main page - more musing on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

last offer in May: photos of the river Rhine, and the adjacent Eltville rose garden, - high water and interesting weather --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Martin, in reply to this comment: the blocking policy is that obviously helpful changes should stand, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. In cleaning up, I left improvements such as updates to which mayor had been elected, grammar, etc. This is a pretty clear-cut instance, in my view, where the presumption should be to revert the sock. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see. Perhaps there was lots of ambiguity. I had no idea there were changes "to which mayor had been elected." But I'm not sure, anyway, how I would judge whether the sock's changes were "obviously helpful". Some seemed biased, but others were just factual, even if UNDUE. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You were replying to DeFacto at that Talk page, or to both of us? I'd say your efforts to show very clearly at the talk page, what had been added by the sockpuppet, were laudable. But I can appreciate DeFacto's frustration when another editor arrives and dumps out what has taken some considerable effort to agree on, albeit unwittingly involving a sockpuppet. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

My reply at article talk was to DF; my reply to you is here because your comment referred to non-content policy. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for explaining. Content and non-content are kinda interlinked, aren't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Want to extend the kind gesture of The Fundamental Wikipedian? Just add {{subst:Fundamental Wikipedian}} to a user's talk page!

Thank you so much, 4theloveofallthings. I may just bury this copy. But if I do, I won't tell which day I did it. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

LOL 4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think this may be a NOTHERE editor. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that looks very likely, given the Nazi-like edit summaries and the "UNIVERSAL TRUTH" on their User page. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Those tear-jerking highlights in full.....

• "Thanks for all voting "No" to BREXIT", 4 June 2016
• Fields of Wheat, 7 June 2019
• "Get Tories Done", 7 July 2022
• Salad Days, 20 October 2022
• "The Long Hot Summer....", 22 May 2024

A whole pattern [21] of bad behavior from numerous admins portrays a picture of how bad faith behavior from admins is covered up by other admins in the same manner the police is "protecting their own". Several admins are disrupting that page for years. The whole chronological order is nearly impossible to reconstruct because of their disruption. Impossible to imagine, but for years this is being discussed... [22] 95.168.118.16 (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You seem keen to spread this particular sh!tshow far and wide. Good job that article's not on my watchlist anymore. Good luck with the coup, but count me out, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's funny 😁 . Nah, it's a mini coup, I just noticed it by accident. I don't actually have anything against them, they spent half their day on Wikipedia doing admin stuff, I come once or twice a year. They deserve to to have it a little their way now and then. Although, they do act like their above others, full of objectivity and integrity. I'm just letting them know that it's not unnoticed. I also left Tesla article a long time ago, but every so often I come to see what's happening. It's a total mess there. Those 3 have been arguing for years about one sentence in the article , and they actually agree about everything. Stupid beond comprehension.

Let me ask you something unrelated. On your page you wrote that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a crime against humanity and it should be prosecuted. Could you elaborate? Because, you know, war is not a crime in international law. I can tell you how the international law labeled the wars in former Yugoslavia. Basically, all warring is ok as long as no crimes are done, and that's it. So, who do you think should be prosecuted? 95.168.107.6 (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

In my mind the distinction between war and crime in a very blurred one, in any case. The idea that two teams of professional soldiers can simply line up against each other on the "battlefield" and fight it out, in a manly way, face to face, without any civilian collateral damage, is a very old-fashioned and outdated one. The medieval-minded Putin has shown that he has no regard whatsoever for the protection of civilian life. His soldiers have committed countless war crimes and atrocities. His invasion of Ukraine, and his continued bomb, missile and drone attack on the Ukrainian people and infrastructure, has no legitimate justification and is predicated on lies and nationalistic fantasy. Since March 2023 Putin has had an arrest warrant issued against him. The International Criminal Court says this: "Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, born on 7 October 1952, President of the Russian Federation, is allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation (under articles 8(2)(a)(vii) and 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute)." This afternoon he performed an aerial bombardment of a supermarket in Kharkiv: [23]. You talk about a "shitshow"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm telling you, courts in former Yugoslavia and international courts deal with it constantly. About two armies fighting aways from civilians. This wasn't the case in modern warfare. US's policy is to do everything that's possible to minimize civilian cazualites, if I'm correct, not to avoid them. Unfortuately, it's not possible to wage a war without civilan cazualties. Now that Russia has taken over the territory, if Ukraine is to liberate with a military action, cazualities will happen. What would be your opinon in that case, because , I'll tell you right now. Someone in Russia will say that Ukraine is starting an unlawful war and pretty much the same as you are saying now. We don't even have to imagine. I think the same thing happened in Croatia. Serb forces took over territory and Croatia started a military action to liberate the land in 1995. Crimes had happened, a lot of civilians left their homes and today in Serbia they are calling that Military action a war crime...Will Ukraine's military action be a war crime if it happens. Because, be sure that civilians will get hurt if Russia will defend the cities. I completely agree about Putin, that Russia's to blame here...I'm just sorry the law won't see it that way, at least hasn't in former Yugoslavia. Don't expect anyone to be prosecuted because of waging war, and most cazualites are because of the war, not war crimes. Not only civilians, I'm counting soldiers , and not only the dead one's, but injured, or the ones that will end up with PTSP and their families. Unfortunately, for all that there is no law that will prosecute Putin and if his only "mistake" in the law sense is that deportation of children (and I really doubt that they would prosecute him over that, he would return the children and they would say, yeah, that's all we wanted with that charge and would just withdraw it). It doesn't feel right by me...Don't believe the courts and the law, nothing will get solved. To be frank, I'm not the one who thinks "people are good but politics makes bad decisions". I'm far more bothered when I see an old lady on TV supporting the war than Putin. I know, starting this topic, the "sh!tshow" seems so...I don't know the word, pointles. Cheers. 95.168.120.7 (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

12 dead in a crowded DIY hardware store in Kharkiv I'm pretty sure Zelenskyy isn't planning to invade Russia. He's just asking for more air defences. Putin belongs in prison. Thanks for sharing your views. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I saw. Terrible. What's worst is that people somehow get used to it...as it's just another day in Ukraine. You know, Putin if he had won (or if he wins), he would be hailed as a great leader and so on...I don't know if you are famliar with this channel [24], but It's sad what some people are saying. What's for them to gain from supporting this war? I'll never understand that. 95.168.116.15 (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, hang on, I know, best idea for UK.... let's Bring Back National Service!! That'll teach those teenage snowflake millennials! One weekend every month they can help spend those £350M a week Brexit savings... and help build those 40 new hospitals. And learn how to use a machine gun! Errr, but hang on, war... what is it good for? I just remembered. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nah, its a mini coup. I think this is one of those. Basically, all warring is ok - Possibly the dumbest thing I have seen written on Wikipedia this year. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know.... let's blame the victim. And then let's blame them some more, for something in the future, that they have no intention of doing. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

No one will be prosecuted for warring. No one was ,in all wars in former Yugoslavia. Croatia started prosecuting people for armed rebellion and had to proclaim abolition. Only war crimes are prosecuted. Same at ICTY. Don't think Putin will be prosecuted for warring. I think there's a widespread campaign of targeting civilians, and that maybe will get prosecuted, if the situation changes so he is extradicted to international courts, but seeing how many people in Russia are supporting the war, I'm sceptical. 95.168.116.15 (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

This user still believes the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a crime against humanity and should be prosecuted. If this hasn't ever happened before, it's time that international law was changed. But prosecution of Putin for war crimes would also be a welcome outcome, just like Radovan Karadžić and Slobodan Milošević. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

So that's your third IP geolocating to Croatia? I see that your first one got blocked for six months. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, they blocked that one from which I posted the report. My edit was disruptive, pinging so many people. I wouldn't do it, but they deleted the ANI report, as if nothing I wrote matters because I'm disruptive. I hope that they talked internally at least and had some introspection. They probably think I'm a sock of that guy that got blocked. They aren't even aware how many people got blocked there. When I was going through all old discussions to compose this list , I was amazed how many people got blocked since then. Even ones with long edit history.

As for Putin, he should be prosecuted for genocide. I'm not an expert here, but I think there's an intent to take over parts (now that they can't take all) of Ukraine and Russify it by changing identiy by force. Children are indoctrinated. People who oppose get killed or prosecuted. Other's are forced to take Russian citizenship, etc. Same as Milosevic and Karadzic, they were prosecuted for genocide. BDW, it's how Russia got so large...95.168.116.19 (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Civilians, including children, are being murdered by Putin, quite regardless of their views. Their views don't come into it. Putin couldn't care less about their views. The orphaned children have been shipped off back to the Motherland, however, to be brought up the correct Russian way. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

RIP Richard Morton Sherman: King of the Swingers.... Martinevans123 (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well done, Richard Thompson! Still thumping it out after 57 years... "Jealous words, Won’t lie still, In my heart". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [25]Reply

It looks like you added a review to this album's article that is from a source that is not on this list: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Could you please remove it and then propose it be added if you think it meets the requirements? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for telling me. Tradfolk looks like a reliable online source. And Gavin McNamara "is an English teacher that loves writing about music. Or a music writer that loves teaching English. Definitely one of those. Over the years he's written for lots of people, from the Big Issue (SW) to Metal Hammer and, before teaching, worked in independent music distribution for too many years." But not sure if he gets paid or not. So I've deleted it. Perhaps that source should be discussed. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, he doesn't have to get paid for it to be a legit source. Please do propose it if you think it should be added and let me know if you do. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The guideline says "Specifically, reviews should be written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)..." And I'm afraid I have no idea about those things, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It says here, that is has an editor called Jon Wilks who has also been running The Old Songs Podcast. So perhaps it's acceptable? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could be. I definitely think you should post to WT:ALBUM. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

So it seems there are other rules.... that both the author and the editor must be seen to be "subject mater experts" who have also appeared in other reliable publications. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

A cautionary tale for all you CB-radio truckers.... well perhaps not all. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only 55 years ago....! Richard still sounds as good. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today's story is about the TFA, by sadly missed Vami_IV. In my support in 2018, I hoped to do justice to Schloss Köthen next - which I will begin today, finally, promised. Its Bachsaal was pictured to begin the year. For more related thoughts and music, look on my talk for 1 June. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Enjoy today's story, related to my topic of the year: 300 years Bach's chorale cantatas, and the first was written for today, - listen to the music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Franz Kafka died 100 years ago OTD, hence the story. I uploaded a few pics from the visit of Graham87. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today's story is about an extraordinary biography, Peter Demetz. - I uploaded a few more pics but leave the link, because there's a new one of Graham and his mother who liked it. - I have an WP:ITNN item needing attention, Alexander Lang. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Attention was given, enjoy on the Main page, or today's story --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

or new pics of spectacular weather --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today's story is about a tune used by Bach and Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today I wanted to write a happy song story, on a friend's birthday, but instead we have the word of thunder on top of it, which would have been better on 2 June, this year's first Sunday after Trinity (mentioned earlier in this thread). The new lilypond - thanks to DanCherek - is quite impressive. As my 2 Jun story said: Bach was fired up. - Today's Main page is rich in music, also Franz Liszt and a conductor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today is "the day" for James Joyce, also for Bach's fourth chorale cantata (and why does it come before the third?) - the new pics have a mammal I had to look up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

"YES", but the new festival for Molly has been on since Thursday! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

p.s. great to see Tony Crows back in action!! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

foxglove in return - sad job today, and only started --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

... as if I didn't have her tenor colleague in the noms, without a comment so far --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

New pics of food and flowers come with the story of Noye's Fludde (premiered on 18 June), written by Brian Boulton. As said above, I nominated Éric Tappy because he died, and it needs support today! I nominated another women for GA in the Women in Green June run, - review welcome, and more noms planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today is a feast day for which Bach composed a chorale cantata in 1724 (and we had a DYK about it in 2012). Can't believe that Jodie Devos had to die, - don't miss her video from the Opéra-Comique at the end, - story to come. The weekend brought plenty of music sung and listened to, and some of it is reflected in the last two stories! + pics of good food with good company --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The image in my DYK story is what I happened to see from my seat in a performance before the festival (with Anna Netrebko in the title role but sold out of course, and the other was possibly the icier Principessa anyway). I recommend the trailer video, with various scenes to the end of the music that Puccini was able to finish before he died in 1924. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the thankses! I've never been thanked before :) And thanks to you for all the great work you've been doing over at Michael Mosley (broadcaster). AlexGallon (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cheers mate. All the best. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ready for that 4th July Election?? You bet!! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

And that exciting Reform UK party political TV broadcast analysis in full:

• 2 of the 6 words were single syllable.
• Great use of full stops.
• I thought the telly was broken.
• It almost picked up in the last 3 seconds.

Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC) (iPlayer's gonna be extra busy)Reply

If I remove something from my talk page, it is extraordinarily discourteous to put it back. If you want to leave any more messages, they had better start with an apology. 57.133.22.170 (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Per WP:BRD, I have made two reverts within the last 24 hours. You have now made three removals. It seems that you have previously edited Neil Parish using a different IP address. Is that correct? You don't consider any of your edit summaries to be "rude"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the edit history at Neil Parish, over the past 11 days, we seem to have a number of similar edits from three different anon IP addresses:

• This by 89.207.171.135, "geolocating" to Ile-de-France in France,
• This and subsequent, by 57.133.22.170, "geolocating" to Lombardia in Italy, and
• This, by 5.22.238.33, "geolocating" to Arendal in Norway, and now blocked for 6 months as {blocked proxy}.

What a strange set of coincidences? Or a European jet-setter perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It appears that you reverted my edits at Compare the Meerkat for citing the Daily Mail. Whilst I see why you did this, the Daily Mail is known to be highly unreliable, there is no ban as you stated to me. In fact there is the quote from the page to linked to that does that 'use as a reference is generally prohibited' but also states ' The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail. '

Apologies if my edit summary was misleading. I'm very glad that you have taken the trouble to read that guidance. I think we both agree that the material that was sourced to the DM was not appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

My main problem is how you dealt with this. It would've been fine if you replaced the source of information and just removed the citation itself. But you chose to revert all changes. I didn't just add that citation. I removed a lot of the useless and non-Wikipedian information that some editors added and restructured parts of that wiki page to make it make more sense and citied other sources and have just had to do that all again. That's all I wanted to say. 62.255.165.34 (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have now restored all of your other edits, and left out the DM material, in a single new edit. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It has been done: The Mirror also covered the info I needed a source for. I checked and they are not in the deprecated section, so I think they are better to use. 62.255.165.34 (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The story is today about the first published composition by Arnold Schönberg which I was blessed to hear. Listen, and perhaps read what Alma Mahler (to-be-Mahler at the time, to be precise, who was present at the first performance) said, and yes that was too much for the Main page ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today's story is about a Bach cantata premiered 300 years ago OTD. - A meeting of two women - the occasion of the cantata - is pictured in our local church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for this links, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

3 July is the birthday of Leoš Janáček, and I'm happy I had a meaningful DYK in 2021. It's also the birthday of Franz Kafka, and I uploaded pics from his family's album seen in Berlin. Proud to have had 2 women in green in June, and the third nom is in progress. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Libuše Domanínská, the subject of yesterday's story, would have turned 100 today, but I missed that ;) - Overnight, Tamara Milashkina became GA and Lando Bartolini went to the Main page. I made my story about his almost unbelievable career, from Luigi in Il tabarro in Philadelphia in 1968 (with a nod to Liberty) up to Calaf in Turandot in Beijing in 1999 ;) - 4 July is also the birthday of Brian Boulton and who was a pioneer of a concise infobox in 2013. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

On a friend's birthday - she is pictured on my talk - I have another RD death article that needs reviewing, Martti Wallén. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pictured on the Main page: Brian's Mozart family grand tour, my story today, and Mozart related to all three items of music on my talk: our 2023 concert, an opera in a theatre where a Mozart premiere took place, and those remembered, the bass, and Liana Isakadze, a violinist from Georgia, (whose article would be better with more details about her music-making). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Found a bit more. Today's story is about her, which is a sad story in the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I remember today Bach's 1724 cantata for this Sunday which is unusual in many respects. Another woman needs attention for RD, Marina Kondratyeva. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

She's on the Main page now. My story today is - because of the anniversary of the premiere OTD in 1782 - about Die Entführung aus dem Serail, opera by Mozart, while yesterday's was - because of the TFA - about Les contes d'Hoffmann, opera by Offenbach, - so 3 times Mozart again if you click on "music" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

She's my story today. What would you suggest for a DYK? Don't miss video ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yesterday I listened in concert to Mozart's Clarinet Quintet, with Sabine Meyer: a delight. - Today's story is about Ruth Hesse, with a pic in the article only, sadly (show your mom, - a profile with closed eyes). I found it difficult to point at a YouTube sample, because yes, her signature roles - the Nurse and Brangäne - exist in great full-length operas with great casts, but hard to find her. - Talking of YouTube: today I was pointed at Elijah by a friend who performed in the concert of the Dessoff Choirs in their centenary year, and I'm quite impressed by samples (beginning and No. 32 where I linked it) - enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11 If that's not enough my talk offers chamber music from two amazing concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just a look at music (on my talk) shows remembrance of three people who died, and creating an article or improving one is all I can do. Three are on the Main page today, and three others planned ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Similarly: Wikipedia:Main Page history/2024 July 30b will have a baritone, a violinist, a composer and a Bach cantata, - almost too much, and the composer's article, Wolfgang Rihm, should be better, help wanted. - Plenty of music on my parents anniversary day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gerda, you may not have noticed, but Martin has not really contributed to Wikipedia since 18 June; about six weeks absence. The only reason I know this is because I have him on my 'watchlist', as we have colloborated on a couple of Wiki articles in relatively recent times. However, I do not have any idea as to why he has been absent for so long. Martin is normally such a regular contributor. I hope there is a simply explanation but... Just so you are aware. Regards. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Martin sent me a thank you note 7 July, and it's vacation time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the prompt Derek. Just taking a break. 😄 Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all the links Gerda. Especially to Les contes d'Hoffmann, which led me, via YT, to Anna Netrebko & Elīna Garanča. Hope all is well with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, thank goodness for that: I had started to worry. On holiday? Anywhere nice? Let us know pre-absence next time, hey, so we can vicariously imagine cool travel destinations, rather than scenarios involving proverbial ditches, etc.? [END: Intrusive demand-mode by inveterate lurker.] Hope all's well; glad to see you around. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much, Aukus. Yes, I hear East Sussex is lovely at this time of year. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes now that we have a sign of life from you! To answer the question when I'm not around, always just look at the top of my talk, for story and music. Today's story is about the unusual cantata that Bach composed 300 years ago for today's 10th Sunday after Trinity. I am sure that you'll enjoy listening not only to the "surprise" which was a 2011 DYK, but the whole thing, especially No. 6. Under music, you'll see the latest concert (op. 111!), memory of the death of Wolfgang Rihm (leading to expansion of his biography in wonderful collaboration, and to two new articles so far), and the latest service which nicely connects to our latest concert of three Bach cantatas. Enjoy your break! I have a FAC open if you want work, and will nominate the cantata for GA today, promised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks, Gerda! Rudbeckias looking very nice there. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Martin missed all of the excitement with Huw Edwards. Nice time to take a holiday, though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today I have two "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, watch and listen, - I like today's especially because you see him at work, hear him talk about his work and the result of his work - rare! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

... and a third, like 22 July but with interview and the music to be played today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today's story is about education, 10 years OTD after lecturing our founder). Music for today's feast is Monteverdi's, the best concert we ever did (so pictured again on my talk), but it wasn't recorded, substituted with a "Pacific" one that comes with subtitles line by line in Latin and English: I learned something! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for the update, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! - Sunday story about another of Bach's chorale cantatas, listen (alto aria #3!), as I listened to two impressive very different choral concerts, - music by 16 composers. In the latest cloudy pictures: a hidden deer, a cat and a blaze of a sunset. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Help? My story today is about a woman, nominated for RD but needing support as I write this. A composer died whose article is long and mostly unreferenced. And some articles open for review, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gerda. I have made a few minor copyedits at Maryvonne Le Dizès and added from sourced recordings. I'm sure many more could be found. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you - with your help she "made it" just before I went to bed. Goehr work is detailed on the talk. - Interesting animal pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No worries. My contributions were quite modest. Glad she got there. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today it's Siegfried Lorenz (baritone), on his birthday, nominated for RD. The concerns regarding Goehr are detailed on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Today is the birthday of Alma Mahler. I believe that Siegfried Lorenz should be mentioned on the Main page among the Recent deaths. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Gerda. I've always been more Konrad. We obviously all need to wade in at Fatman Scoop. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

probably ;) - he appeared! Next needing support: Alexander Goehr --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't understand what the question was. Deb (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Deb. I think Aukus was asking about Welsh morphology. Perhaps a question for the Talk page there. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see. There is some overlap between the articles, and some unnecessary duplication. Deb (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for attempting to understand my ramblings, despite my incoherence, Martin. (You did a pretty good job.) And I'm sorry, I shouldn't have tried to start a discussion that way. Not really the best approach to take (blame my exasperation - which is not anyone else's problem). I appreciate you trying to recruit an expert to help. I will now take it to the more sensible venue, where Deb might weigh in if she would like to. Apologies all round! AukusRuckus (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please see Talk:Literary Welsh morphology#Links to Welsh morphology, if interested. (I chose that page as the most recently active). Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note: I speak Welsh almost as fluently as the Donald speaks Swahili. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply