User talk:Martin of Sheffield/Archive 8

Thanks

Thanks for reverting, Bizarrely I've walked through there a million and one times and have never known the name, Anyway do we know if "Tolgate Coffee" actually exists ?, Google brings up nothing and unfortunately I've really paid attention to the shops so I have no idea if said shop even exists so wasn't sure if you knew at all, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Use DuckDuckGo and you'll find it. IIRC it should open on 12 August so technically there is a bit of WP:CRYSTAL going on. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah thank you, Lord knows why it doesn't show on Google, Meh no point reverting for the sake of 4 days, Ah well thanks again, –Davey2010^Talk 18:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

O Tannenbaum

Hey, peace. I was sincerely not trying to waste your time. If that recording is in fact the first known recording, that's well worth noting, and having a cite is how to do that. Sure, we can downgrade to just "an early recording," but if there's actually some evidence that it's the first known recording, that's worth mentioning and citing. Sorry for rubbing you the wrong way. TJRC (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the article you will see that I was correcting a date and including a link for this recording. If you think the cite (bearing in mind that the original had no links whatsoever) doesn't support the claim, then the constructive thing to do is to edit the page to reflect the ambiguity. Shoving the link down the page and then complaingin there is no reference looks like fly-by tagging. This is unhelpful to readers and rude to those editors who are seeking to add content and not just increase their edit counts. Where you lie on the spectrum I honestly don't known and really don't want to start an investigation. There is a place for {{cn}} where you want to challenge a statement and think it is wrong, but some (maybe not you) editors have a nasty habit of just adding {{cn}} after any edit to their favourite pages. I've even had fly-bys adding tags to every paragraph that does not end in a citation, even where the preceding sentence does! Such editors clearly haven't read and thought, merely acted out of mechanical belief. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about your addition of the URL. After you added it, I moved it to the EL section where it belongs, that's all. But independent of your edit -- and not as a result of it -- the claim that this was the first recording should have a cite. I couldn't find one, and the link you had added didn't provide one, and I am loathe to simply strike a long-standing claim. I'd much rather enlist the help of other editors to provide substantiation for it.

I don't consider that drive-by tagging; it's part of a cooperative way of building the encyclopedia. My general MO is to provide the tag, in the hopes that someone will be able to provide the needed citation. If I notice long-placed tags (say, a year or two later) when editing, I will remove the unsubstantiated material (or edit it if it can be saved, as you did). But I like to give an opportunity to have it fixed.

I still think that it would be worthwhile, if this is in fact the first known recording, to document that. I think that would be an improvement to the article.

Most importantly, though, please understand that none of this was directed at you; it's directed at trying to improve the article. After some ten years of editing, I'm not really sweating my edit count. TJRC (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Canal Locks

Thanks for your reply. On the K & A, I guessed that someone made a mistake in the surveying, and a stretch of the canal was too shallow. So rather than re-excavate, they added an extra lock, just to lift the level by a foot or two. Just a guess, but these mistakes do happen. The first presented plan for the Liverpool and Manchester railway, didn't allow the headroom over a navigable waterway which had been specified, and was rejected by parliament. 78.147.41.197 (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

There are usually two reasons for "silly" locks. One is where a canal joins an older canal and there is a requirement to lock down, so as to ensure water flows into the older canal. See section 7.4 in the main article. On the K&A this did not apply. The canal itself runs from Bath to Newbury where it joins navigable rivers, the Avon and Kennet. At Reading therefore we are only dealing with a canalised river which normally has plenty of water. Normally there is the 1' rise, but when the Kennet is in spate the restriction through Brewery Gut raises the level up to the top of County Lock. The lock and adjacent weir keep this variation isolated from the stretch above up to Fobney. It is worth noting that navigation to Newbury occurred before the Kennet was officially navigable in 1718, indeed IIRC it was in part a desire to improve access for the cloth trade that provided the capital for its improvement. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)

Re your restoration of images here. Bearing in mind WP:IG, specifically "However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. ... One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.", can you give the reasoning behind your action? The images could be interspersed within the article, but it is relatively short on text and the infobox causes compression of the text (WP:SANDWICHING). All the images, and about 200 others of the destroyer, her crew and her operations, are in the appropriate commons category. Wiki guidelines strongly suggest removing the images until such time as the article is long enough to support more interspersed within the text. I am curious to hear why you feel these four images warrant retention in this format. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Mainly because I thought they had been removed by accident in all the reformatting that has been going on. I'll be honest, knowing that an inexperienced editor such as yourself was involved in a tit-for-tat format dispute with several more established editors it seemed like a reasonable assumption. I tend to believe in the "cock-up" rather than "conspiracy" theory of life! By the way, WP:IG makes sense where there is a lot of text and images can be interspersed, it breaks down when the text is short; particularly if the infobox is unusually long as here. The gallery collates the images and stops the text disintegrating into a thin ribbon; however feel free to move them if you think the vertical format works better.

Even more important than WP:IG is WP:RF. Will potential readers navigate to a commons directory? I sincerely doubt it. You are clearly an enthusiast and also surprisingly conversant with WP structures for an IP editor. Most readers will not be at your level, WP:RF suggests "a good theoretical audience are high school and college students". How many of them will realise that all images are hidden away at the end of an obscure link down at the bottom?

What you've been doing here is excellent. If you are planning to continue editing WP, and I hope you will, may I urge you to consider getting an account? When you have a moment try reading WP:ACCOUNT which explains the benefits of registering. If you've not yet come across them there are also specialist projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history or Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships which seek to improve content across multiple articles. I've not yet come across a project which includes IP users, yet another reason to join up. Finally, we all had to start somewhere, and like most beginners were probably a bit brash at first. Stick with it, accept that others may have valid views even if you disagree, and you'll become a valuable member of Wikipedia.

King regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Help with getting MOS:TENSE established in an article

Hi, Martin,

I see that you're a somewhat frequent, good contributor to the MOS and discussion about it. I was wondering if maybe you'd be so kind as to offer your opinions and other help elsewhere as well. Have you been familiarized with MOS:TENSE? If so, what's your opinion about making sure it's applied? The MOS is a set of rules that applies to every article, correct? Would you please be so kind as to lend me your hand then?

Thanks if so, 174.23.162.213 (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

As long as I'm asking you for MOS help...

Also, as long as I have you here reading my request for MOS-establishment help, let me ask you for your opinion on some other things, okay?

Which to you is more accurate: calling abbreviations in which letters are pronounced individually, like a lot of initial abbreviations such as "CD," "ATM," and "LCD" are, as "acronyms," even though they are not (since they aren't pronounced as if they were just single words like "LASER," "SCUBA," "PIN," and "VIN," etc. are, and so those abbreviation examples are acronyms [even as "laser" and "scuba," and probably several others, have long been commonly lowercased]), or just calling them "initialisms" or "initial abbreviations" when they are indeed NOT acronyms?

Which to you is clearer: saying that a given model of computer or game system looks like just a "stereo" (which could be anything from a non-portable, traditional home stereo system, to a vehicle stereo system, to a tiny little MP3 player), or saying that it looks like a traditional home stereo system component?

And then, as a follow-up regarding systems that look like home-stereo equipment, if they are still computers, then which makes more sense: to compare them with other devices that look like just "computers" (even though these still are computers, so they look like their own unique type of computer), or to compare them against computers that look more like traditional computers?

Which do you believe is clearer: that when a specific computer-derived entertainment system can be converted into that computer by adding back specific peripherals such as a floppy disk drive like the derived-from computer model the system came with has, to simply say "disk drive" (which is ambiguous because it can refer to the CD drive that the machine already has, or to a hard disk drive which is only secondary to the floppy drive on those computers), or to be more specific by saying "floppy disk drive"?

Thanks for your opinions,

174.23.162.213 (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Marty, I've done my best to do the right thing and get my discussion going at talk:Commodore CDTV, but some trolls keep on deleting my discussion and all replies with it! Will you please help me out over there by restoring it and standing up for me, and then adding your own discussion? 75.162.224.204 (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You have a right to know these rotating IP's belong to a banned user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD". Sro23 (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: Thanks. I'd already checked them out and seen the discussions on EEng's and Corinne's pages. Whilst I think he might have a small point in there soemwhere his attitude makes me just want to ignore it. Possibly cowardly, but there are other more experienced editors dealing with the troll so I'll plead WP:DONTFEED. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Puffing Billy

Martin, thanks for your intervention. I took the tip to change, also, the translation of the article that I'm posting in lusophone Wikipedia. Jadolfo (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Lock (water navigation)

You were right to remove canal prism, but it is a widely used phrase, particularly in US usage, and confusing, to me at least; I was thinking in terms of a railway triangle. I've tucked it away at Canal#Construction instead, so it will show up if anybody searches for it. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Trevithick

While I won't restore my edit in History of rail transport that says that Trevithick was Cornish, I will note that while Cornwall is currently a county, historically "It is one of the seven Celtic nations with a rich cultural heritage" (per the Cornwall article). The notion of Cornish as a nationality is complex and not as easily dismissed as your edit suggests. I'll also note that replacing a sourced assertion with your own opinion is not really the right way to go about these things. Railfan23 (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

At the time Trevithick was alive Cornwall was part of England. Certainly Trevithick was Cornish, but he was also English and British - the terms are not exclusive. Rolt's reference to him as Cornish does not establish a separate nationality. The phrase "an English engineer born in Cornwall" covers both corners (and BTW is not my "own opinion" but a consensus arrived at). How far would you like to take these things? Would you prefer to call him an Illogan engineer or even a Tregajorran engineer? More pertinently how would this help a reader living in, say, Zambia? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"English" is no more a nationality than "Cornish". Both are regional subdivisions of the nation of Great Britain (both at that time and today).

I have no objection to the "Cornish" descriptions (they are relevant and more specific), but edit-warring to insert something that makes no more sense, even in a rigid sense, is ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Martin of Sheffield you didn't claim there was a consensus, you reverted my edit because "Cornwall is a county, not a country" which is inaccurate. The consensus at Talk:Richard Trevithick, such as it is, is for "British", not "English". Perhaops you would care to update the History of rail transport article? Railfan23 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Quite happy, indeed I nearly did so when I did the reversion. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, a good result. Railfan23 (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Damian Green - Not sure why this involves me
Damian Green Added some more about the sexual harassment stuff, please help update it, breaking news is coming.... --Mr.Exicornt (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC) I am not sure the references are reliable though.--ClemRutter (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC) Also Wikipedia is not for breaking news -- much like work computers are not for porn. MPS1992 (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Barometer

Didn't realize that person had fixed their own vandalism on Barometer, whoops! Mpawluk (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem. We can all get caught in exactly that way by test edits. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Recorder (educational uses)

Thank you for quality articles such as All Saints Church, Frindsbury, Shaker broom vise, Recorder (educational uses), Julius Mombach and Peter Harlan, for contributing to articles in the OTD section such as Hartley Colliery disaster, for making music easier to read, - Martin, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Content Improvement

Hi,

I prepared and added a YouTube link to below page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_effect?wprov=sfla1

I saw that you have removed this. Is there anything I can do to improve my content. Please Guide Mbkp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbkpmj (talk • contribs) 12:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Mbkpmj: see my reply at User talk:Mbkpmj#External YouTube links. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Mbkpmj: I didn't remove the YouTube video, but I did move it to "External Links" and said as much in the edit comment. The lead to an article (where you originally placed it) is only a summary of the main article, not detail. I wondered about moving it down to the theoretical treatment, but after viewing it I didn't feel it was obvious enough for non-specialists. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Strood

Hi Martin, Could I ask is what I've added okay?, I'm not sure on the grammar and all that so thought I'd atleast try and hope hope it's all okay, Also apologies for undoing your edit which I've obviously put back, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I started to go through regularising commas and full stops as well as ensuring that references follow punctuation, then hit an edit conflict with you! Realising that you wee still working I silently backed off. I'll have a further look this evening and tweak if I think it is necessary. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ahhhh right sorry, It's one thing I dislike on here is edit conflicts!, Anyway okie dokie thanks so much, Take care, –Davey2010^Talk 20:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Atheist Republic

Re Talk:Atheism#Atheist Republic: This is a delicate situation involving a long-term abuser, see WP:UNID. The person loves attention and the less said about the case the better, which is why I'm posting here. As far as I know, there is no problem with atheistrepublic.com and as far as I'm concerned, that link is fine provided others agree etc. However, atheistrepublic.net + atheistrepublic.org are LTA links and will be blacklisted if necessary. Further information available via email. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)