User talk:Martinevans123/Archive 4

Six Bells Colliery Disaster

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Six Bells Colliery Disaster, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.dmm-pitwork.org.uk/html/sixbells.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted a re-write. Surely these are facts? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are facts, but merely re-arranging the sentences is not enough to avoid a copyright violation. I suggest you read WP:CFAQ. The most relevant part of that page is this:

"Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, although the structure, presentation, and phrasing of the information should be your own original creation. You can use the facts, but unless they are presented without creativity (such as an alphabetical phone directory), you may need to reorganize as well as restate them to avoid substantial similarity infringement."

So yes, I agree that this is a copyright violation. Sorry, but I think you'd be better off starting from scratch. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting an answer to the question I posted on your talk page. I'm really not sure how it is possible to "reformulate the concepts" when these are simple facts, and when the sentences containing them have indeed been re-written and re-ordered. I don't suppose the copyvio tag from Coren would have been added if I had omitted the source as an external link. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question you posted on my talk page was "Did you agree the tag with User:Coren?" That's not proper English ("agree" is an intransitive verb), so I might be misinterpreting what you meant, but I assumed you meant "Did you agree with the tag...?" I answered that question above – yes, I agree that the article is a copyright violation. Reordering the sentences like you did here is not enough to resolve the copyright problem. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that it's not English that's proper enough for you. I think most people would understand exactly what I meant, intransituve verb or not. So, yes, you are misinterpreting and your assumption was a wrong one. The "copyright problem", however, seems to be essentially a problem created jointly by Coren's automatic viobot and your subjective opinion. But, yes, it seems that one might as well start from stratch. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Ghost

Please excuse this entry Martin but I can't work out how to contact you any other way. Nice to see you are a fellow Cherry Ghost fan! I created the trivia section yesterday on their wiki page. Thanks for the detail on Simon's degree. The only thing is the article ref'ed only states it's a 'maths degree' so please if u can update the link to one stating it's a BA in mathematics. Also just to let you know your 'India' link didn't work out. Again apologies for this entry if u know how to contact someone direct please point me in the right direction. Cheers, Steve. Stevexyg

Have now replaced The Sun ref with a copy of The Independent ref. It also just says "degree", which seems to be what Aldred himself said. I have asssumed that if it had been a higher degree such as an M.Sc. he would have mentioned this and it would have been worthy of reporting by both newpapers. It might be noteworthy to add the University he went to, if that too could be verified. 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff Martin. Will have a search to see if can find out which Uni Simon attended, guessing it would be Manchester as it's a good one but you can't be sure, plenty people like to go away to 'exotic' unis in far-flung places - like Cardiff for example! I'm not convinced he would state he had a Phd if he had one as he doesn't seem the type to blow his own trumpet. Maybe he's keeping it quiet because it's a 3rd class from an ex-Poly. Cheers, Steve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevexyg (talk • contribs) 23:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After serching in vain for info I emailed Cherry Ghost via MySpace asking Simon for more details on his Maths degree saying he could look quite clever with more info up there(!). He kindly got back promptly with the details. Obviously I can't reference an email but have included the info in Trivia section. Cheers, Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevexyg (talk • contribs) 11:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Steve, I can't find anything in the public domain either. I have done a slight re-write which I hope is suitable. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better than my slightly awkward prose Martin, I fully approve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevexyg (talk • contribs) 16:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Summers

I saw your warning to Famale that his/her changes to Andy Summer's entry may all be rolled back. What do you think should be done? I don't know if all of Famale's changes are accurate or inaccurate, but I see Famale's removed almost all citations and almost all links (replacing the latter with all caps). I was wondering your opinion because I am very new to editing. Thanks.Tinman44 (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I was an administrator, or had the roll back tool, I would have used it by now. I have no idea where this editor is going with these edits. After a few more similar I think one of us should seek advice from an admin. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Feelgood

Regarding your recent edits, do you have a reference to verify the 'standing ovation' comment. Can I suggest it is in breach of NPOV. Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, It's on the band's own site [1], but I agree that a ref should be added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have now added ref and an early review. If you think the premier unbalances the article, or you think sny of this beaches NPOVPOV, please fell free to tone down, trim or replace. Theatrical release date and contemporary review could be added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poets' Corner

Hi there. Thanks for the help so far with Poets' Corner. I've been adding some ideas and notes to the talk page: Talk:Poets' Corner. Would you consider discussing some things there, and/or helping out with specific things? I'm going to do some editing of the article tonight (putting the names into the list), and may be reorganising it slightly, but wanted to see what others thought of various possibilities. I'll go into more detail on the talk page once I've added the new names into the lists. Carcharoth (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goldcliff Priory

Do you think you could take a look at this section: "Unusually, as at Prinknash and Farnborough, the monks at Goldcliff wore white habits. This was in contrast to the black ones typically worn other Benedictine monks, like those at Ramsgate and elsewhere." This cites the 1970 article by Williams in The Monmouthshire Antiquary, which I assume you have - the problem is that the abbeys at Farnborough and Ramsgate seem to be 19th/20th century foundations, so it seems odd to refer to Goldcliff in the same terms. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I only picked it up because a bot identified Farnborough as an ambiguous link, I clicked on it, found that the abbey at Farnborough was 19th century... etc. etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preston

Why do you keep removing my edits to Preston? The museum has moved to Manchester! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.102.151 (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you vandalise an article by describing Preston as a "shithole", you are likely to be banned. If you really think the museum has moved, go ahead and change the National Football Museum article first. But you might also have to change the details currently given on official website to suit your needs. Thanks.

Bleed air talk page

I have responded to your question [there]. EditorASC (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us your evidence that the Mackenzie Ross study "has been manufactured by two airline labor unions who have a powerful financial incentive"? And you may want to check your link to the summary of findings [2], as it seems not to open. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you raise some interesting points, Editor:

Self selection: - I don't think the hypothesis here is that "all bleed air from all aircraft will always damage all pilots". I think it's more a case of "some bleed air from some aircraft may sometimes damage some pilots". If so then self selection by self observed symptoms seems a reasonable way of reducing the subject pool to those which for whom there is the most likely to have been a measurable effect. Bur we can look forward to the Retrospective Study of 1500 pilots 2007-2009 which is now in preparation by the NTU.

Post Hoc analysis: - could you explain how any researcher could find a group of counter-balancing pilots who will be unaware of the possibility of the toxic effects of bleed air?

Other pollutants: the "reports" that "formaldehyde, ozone, deicing fluid, improper mixing of toilet chemicals, passenger sources (in their carry-on bags), etc" seem to be simply some of the items in the list of possible contaminants in the COT service information leaflet. I agree that the Mackenzie Ross study made no attempt to exclude these. But nor would you expect such a small scale study to do this?

Previous studies: is your hypothesis that since toxic chemicals are at safe levels in engine oil, there can be no ill effects of long exposure from the product of bleed air mixed with this oil? I am also not sure that the hypothesis is that all damage is caused by noticeable "fume events".

Political agenda spam: - Could you explain why you consider the work of Mackenzie Ross at NTU to constitute "political agenda spam"?

Structure of article: - Your unilateral removal of all "criticism" seems to leave the article a little unbalanced, as aero toxic syndrome, whether real or not, is quite an important and relevant topic. I'm not sure that one single external link to Aerotoxic Syndrome in the "See also" section is sufficient.

Thanks.

Place name links

I noticed that you were adding wiki link to placenames in Allen Toussaint. Since the article Pritchard has nothing to do with the town in Alabama, and there isn't an article on the town, there isn't much point in the link. Likewise, Hollywood is an article about the city in California. It makes more sense to link to Hollywood, Florida instead of linking separately to the city and state. You might also consider whether these sorts of links are an example of overlinking. --Larrybob (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for a lazy edit. I usually check before and after linking. If they are correct legitimate links, that add to the article, I don't think they constitute overlinking. But if you think they are unnecessary. by all means unlink them. Thanks.

I ended up fixing the link to Hollywood, Florida, removing the link to Pritchard, and leaving the one to Alabama. Thanks --Larrybob (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the correct spelling of Prichard, Alabama! --Larrybob (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Priestley and Priestley Riots

Please be careful about adding material to the above featured articles. They have already gone through extensive review processes. Also, note, for example that while some editors prefer block quotes to be indented next to images (like yourself), others do not, as the only way to achieve this is to force an indent that creates a large whitespace on some monitors. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

Hi Martinevans123/Archive 4. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! –xeno^talk 21:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report of edit waring

I appreciate your hard work to sort out this problem. However, IMO they seem entrenched in their POV. As the edit waring has been getting worse, I've filed a report at AN/EW. Hope this brings a measure of peace to that article. Sunray (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No need for 30, I'm sure. He/she now seems to have gone, for the time being anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Rorschach Article is decreasing "the sum of all human knowledge."

You agreed with something I wrote. However, after looking up the dictionary definition, I am having misgivings about my use of the word, "stupid." It's inaccurate and possibly inflammatory. So with your permission, I'd like to ~~strike~~ the word and replace it with "less knowledgeable," instead. So the sentence, here, [3] would then read, "the world is a little ~~more stupid~~ less knowledgeable, now." According to WP:TALK etiquette, I need your permission to change my edit. I will abide by whatever you decide. I can live with what I wrote. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion has my full support. And I think you are right. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so desparate to hide the data in the cell phone page?

I just saw where you again deliberately hid data in a serious violation of NPOV. The work is NOT original as it came with cites to a variety of sources including the NTHSA and Census Bureau. There are tables like this all over Wikipedia. But for some reason you seem hellbent on making sure that no one sees information that directly contradicts the conclusions of the studies that have been done. Why is that? --Theadversary (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons for not wanting the table, which seem to be supported by some of those other editors who have also commented in the discussion, are given on the talk page for that article. No, not "hellbent". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nash & Bristol Channel floods, 1607

In the picture caption you added on Bristol Channel floods, 1607 there is a link to Nash a dab page. Do you have any more details about where Nash is?— Rod ^talk 11:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've moved the image back because, in my view, they look better on the same side - it's a matter of personal preference really, and WP:IMAGE doesn't seem to give any useful advice. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Yes, it is personal preference. Although am now wondering if either of the images would be better lower down in a section that currently has none? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - we can keep fiddling with it till it looks right! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

smile

"even in the light of he current UK Strategic Defence Review?" thanks Victuallers (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MacNeice

Hi, Thanks for your edits to Louis MacNeice. Best wishes Span (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy International Poetry Day (UK). Span (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I am not embarrassed at all, but you are entitled to your opinions, no matter how stupid. Regardless, if you continue pestering me at my talk page with your irrelevancies, despite my clear indication that I wish you to stop, I will report the matter at WP:AN/I. -Rrius (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

".. no matter how stupid" - um, that seems somewhat subjective, and also insulting (again)? Which opinion(s) did you have in mind? Why is my suggestion on the talk page "fluff" exactly? And, as I asked you earlier, when does quoting an insult actually become an insult? I thought you had wanted to "help". But now threats. Hmmm, thanks for all all your encouragement, Rrius.

But now it seems that the correct prescription, from Dr. Rrius, is to have the matter reported at WP:AN/I.

I should just let well enough alone, but I'll respond. Even someone of the meanest intelligence could tell by the sentence structure that the stupid opinion was yours that I was somehow embarrassed about something. The fluff I was referring to is your suggestion at Talk:Ann Widdecombe that we talk about her reputation, including the especially fluffy part about Google hits from searching for "Widdecombe+blonde". You've asked when quoting an insult becomes an insult, but I don't know why you've asked it, so I haven't answered. Responding to one of your edit summaries, I never said edit summaries are too short to insult people; rather, I said they are too short to be polite. That's just another example of your taking me out of context or putting words in my mouth. Finally, I did give you advice, which you are perfectly within your rights to accept or not. But, you are not allowed to continue harassing me at my talk page after I've told you to stop. What I said above was not a threat, but (as I've already said) a warning. As I said, I probably shouldn't have bothered taking you seriously enough to respond to your comments since you will probably just wildly misconstrue them as you have each previous time I've responded to you. I hope I'm wrong about that. -Rrius (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

".. someone of the meanest intelligence" - who is this?
and again, which "stupid opinon" was this, exactly?
I have no wish to `harass you at your talk page after you've told me to stop'. Am I now harassing you on your talk page?
Where exactly did I suggest a section discussing Ann Widdecombe's "reputation"?
Why are Google hits "fluffy" - only above a certain number maybe? do they all have to be tabloids?

Yes, you should definitely just let well enough alone - in fact, if you don't stop pestering me on my talk page then I'll just have to "have the matter reported at WP:AN/I", obviously. That's the correct prescription, isn't it.

widdicombe

No, there is no assertion that your additions were in any way libelous .. they were cited and so not yours, so to speak. Peter Mandelson has at least one, and Hazel Blears has chipmunk There used to be a no nicknames consensus but that is dated and we use editorial judgment to work it out. I removed this one for the reasons I added in the edit summary, ...I have never heard it and am in the UK and interested and a watcher and reader of political updates and it seemed like a negative portrayal of a living person. I appreciate your discussion here. Yes, please post something on the talkpage and we can discuss it. Aslo please don't take the comments to heart, tabloid twaddle and such is simply a strongest position, an opener for if required discussion leading to a compromise, feel free to continue discussion on the article talkpage. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for polite and thoughtful response (in sharp contrast to the incredibly severe and threatening response I received from another editor). I must admit I hadn't heard "Doris Karloff" a few weeks ago, and certainly not its origin. I'm not sure it really counts as "a nickname" as such, like the "The Prince of Darkness" or "Tarzan or "The Chingford Skinhead" etc., etc. Private Eye magazine really has a lot to answer for, as far as politican's nicknames are concerned (and insulting them in general, of course). But I genuinely found the Daily Mail's tagging quite apt and amusing, and the sort of fact that one might expect to find in Wikipedia. It seemst hat others do not. I'll think about a draft paragraph concering the Widdecombe image change, possibly. But thanks anyway.

billion vs one thousand million

Aloha,

I couldn't help noticing that you reverted my edit on the one pound coin article. I am not sure I understand what you meant. Do you intend to generally avoid the word billion because of the obsolete meaning 10¹²? Please explain. In my experience billion is much more commonly used than thousand million Thanks!

Iago 2¹² 23:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this. Iago 2¹² 20:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]