User talk:Martinvl/2011

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Martinvl, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Martinvl/LondonAmbulance. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation for Pound (mass)

Please provide a citation for your edit to Pound (mass). Please be aware that comments in an edit summary do not constitute a citation. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added some references - one of them itself has a reference to what appears to be a reputable book (which might be out of print). Martinvl (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

freeways

thanks Martinvl; actually that was me (latest merge proposer). I'm trying to push expressway to the lower grade of highway from freeway, rather than a lexical "roads called expressways" basis, which is as inappropriate as the present "roads called motorways" bent of Motorway. See WP:DICTNankai (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, do you have access to an OECD definition similar to the Motorway one that would describe an expressway?Nankai (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nankai, I have only seen OECD definitions for motorways and for roads. These definitionsa re used for statistical purposes when comparing the economies of different countries. If you have too many definitions, it becomes difficult to compare like with like. In my view, I would define an expressway as being a road that fulfils one or more (alternatively two) of the criteria for a motorway - I haven't made up my mind which is the better cut-off point. Martinvl (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Stellenbosch to bid for Wikimania 2012!

Hi Martin!

The nascent South African Wikimedia chapter has decided to bid to host Wikimania in Stellenbosch, South Africa in 2012. This would be the first Wikimania in South Africa, and would be a great advertisement for our country. Please take a look at meta:Wikimania_2012/Bids/Stellenbosch. If you can add to the discussion, please do. If you feel that you are able to do anything to help, please join the Wikimedia South Africa mailing list and let us know. Even simple messages of support are valued!

Best regards,

David Richfield

Rollback and reviewer granted

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have also given you reviewer rights. See WP:REVIEWER and Help:Pending changes for more information. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Stone (mass) (disambiguation)

Thank you for fixing Stone (mass) (disambiguation). — Robert Greer (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

French units of measurement (to 1795)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of French units of measurement (to 1795), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: French units of measurement. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review on Falkland Islands

Appreciate the enthusiasm but shouldn't we wait for the peer review to focus our efforts. No objection to the changes, its just a review requires a stable article. Wee Curry Monster talk

OK, I will hold back. Martinvl (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Falkland Islanders

I think that as part of improving the Falkland Islands article we can take a good shot at expanding this article enough to reach a DYK. This would definitely make it easier improve the main Falkland Islands page after the information has been taken in, because it would be easier to see what was important. Thought I'd mention it as I was going to work on it, and saw you had made some recent edits to the page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chipmunkdavis

I did a little work so as to substantiate the summaries that I had in the main article. I was not planning to do very much more work apart from maybe using the census data. The census data suggests that the section on religion is oveplayed - the census figures showed "Christian" and "not specified/none" as being about 99% - other faiths accounted for about 1%. I also planned to get proper references for the Roman Catholic and Anglican hierarchy, but not much more. The other issue that I don't quite know how to handle is the number of contract workers on the island (at least that is what the census figures tell me) without doing OR. Martinvl (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It just seems like a good opportunity to get some good information placed on these articles. The religion section does seem strange and disproportionate, although no doubt more information about christianity would go a long way towards fixing that. Personally I want to do something about the language section, a short summary of the dialect. Might be worth adding a paragraph about history too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Undone indentation of comments

I've just undone a change you made to my comments on Wikipedia talk: No original research since it represents a substantial alteration to my comments. The purpose of indentation is to show what is being responded to. If as here, both posts relate to a single previous comment then one following the other with the same indentation level is correct. By indenting my comments you alter them in to a response to SDY's comments rather than your comments. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. Martinvl (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

NOR

When people object to changes to core content policies, you can't keep reverting, Martin. What you've added makes no sense, and it can't stay as it is. I'd appreciate it if you'd revert yourself. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slim Slim Virgin II.

I added two sections - the use of maps and the use of "reputable computer programs". The use of maps had been discussed, but I agree the use of "reputable computer programs" had not been discussed. I have removed the phrase regarding "reputable computer programs". When I originally made the change regarding the use of maps, a number of constructive comments were made and the phrasing also became unwieldy, hence my splitting the first sentence into two into what I believes clarifies the position. I invite yot to reread what is there.

Another reason that I reverted what you had written was that I had originally wanted to combine the section on routime calculations, but was explicitly asked by User:Kmhkmh not to do so as the Maths group were discussing that section. This is also a reason why I decline to revert. Martinvl (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Martinvl. You have new messages at Talk:Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ADS query

Hi fellow wikipedian, My information was gathered personally and through my colleagues, the last two weeks of April we documented and recorded information from advanced direction signs, using photographs and data from the roadside. About 12 of us were involved in the project, and that is why I have worded the update phrase as I did, we all saw it fit for purpose. Also I am sorry if I have offended you by replacing your contributions but they were inaccurate I'm afraid. For those roads we couldn't go to we used various web resources and contacted people living in the area to help us and contribute their information for the pages. The information gathered was from the ADS on the road at the 1m, 1/2m and 0m signs (or 2/3m, 1/3m, 0m), so are up to date, however where signs were not visible either removed or damaged we used past sources to gather information. The Highways Agency also helped us with our contributions. Thatmotorwayguy (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

ADS

Hi, The information I contribute is 99% accurate, human error can account for 1%. I gather all my information from reliable and trusted sources, I gave up using the DfT and HA, their information sometimes lacks the 'accuracy'. DLS are everywhere nowadays and can be found now on Google Streetview, which would provide accurate information for you, just a suggestion there. Thatmotorwayguy (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

History of the metric system

Thank you for creating this interesting article. It is a shame you did not nominate it for front page exposure at T:TDYK (now it is too late for that). :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, I forgot Excel only carries it out to 14 digits. It's 39.370078740157480314960629921259842519685039… (repeating 370078740157480314960629921259842519685039) --JimWae (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi JimWae

Thank you for your note. While you might be correct, the way in which I expressed the values is exactly correct, reflects the definitons and is quicker to enter on a calculator (unless the user is working to four decimal places, in which case he should use the values in the table). Martinvl (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Article in Arbitration

Having briefly reviewed the article's discussion history, I've identified you as a potentially aggrieved editor whose contributions may have been negatively impacted by the actions of a group of editors who are alleged to be POV-pushing and engaging in WP:GAMES. I invite you to peruse the arbcom request and voice your opinion and experiences, at your leisure. The link is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WP:NPOV_and_WP:GAMES_in_.22Falkland_Islands.22_and_related_articles

Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of maps in Wikipedia

re [1], thanks for taking this on. I started this guideline the last time this came up. I worked on this for a bit, but when interest waned I gave up and moved on. Nice to see some others chime in. This comes up every year or so, so it would be nice to at least have a guideline that we can use when this comes up. Dave (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Interesting though that we came in from a totally different angles - my thank to the editor who drew my attention to you article. I liked your observation of mass-transit maps. I trust that you are in agreement with my concept regarding the use of the same analysis technique in two different disciplines. Martinvl (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with in general with what's being discussed. I'm not sure I would have said maps should be treated the same as foreign language sources; however, aside from not liking the wording, I understand the point being made. Dave (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you think of alternative phrases? One that springs to mind is "Specialised notation" and liken it to a music score. I know nothing about music, but I am sure that there are certain concepts that anybody who can read a music score can picjk up immeadiately. Maps are the same. How happy are you about trying to work something about music scores (or anything else) into the article. I could get my daughter to assist - she has sung in the Halle Choir - the top English choir outside London. Martinvl (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

History of the Falkland Islands

Hi,

We were discussing how to fix that on the talk page. Please join in there. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

redirect repeated links

Hi, could you provide an example of your recent addition to MOSLINK? I'm unsure what it means. Tony (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tony - see my example in Zara Phillips. Martinvl (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Expressway redirect

Thanks for your recent assistance with the article Limited-access road. Please pop in to Talk:Limited-access road to discuss the redirect for Expressway Nankai (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

Your original text on the sovereignty dispute was more accurate, the 1955 case involving Argentina foundered as Argentina indicated it would not respect the result. I see no need to include Chile, as this appears to be widening the dispute over the Falkland Islands. Reason (A) for the revert. Switching the statement to Brisbane is also less accurate for a summary as it is Vernet who made the original claim of destruction of the settlement when he sought to gain compensation for his losses. I link the statement to Brisbane in History of the Falkland Islands, which is I believe the right place to do it. Reason (B).

I always give a reason for reverting, your habit of initiating revert wars without discussing per WP:BRD is generating unnecessary conflict and I do wish you would stop doing so. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Miss/Ms/Mrs Phillips

Hiya. I know that some "actual usage" occurs as you say, but technically and legally (and the Palace would agree) dictates that Miss is the style of a spinster and Mrs the automatic legal style of a married, divorced or widowed woman, regardless of their surname DBD 17:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi DBD,

Thanks for your note. How do you know that the Palace would agree, especially since she is the first memeber of the Royal family not to take her husband's name. We should either leave it as it is or wait for announcements to be made.

BTW, I see that you are a Hampshire Hog - I am one by adoption. Martinvl (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:WessexBankStatement.svg

Hello Martinvl, I've updated your SVG. I've included the :File:Wyvern of Wessex.svg. The IBAN code seems only in the preview overlong, but next time I would choose the font condensed. The background is semi transparent, is that right? Greeting -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Perhelion

Thank you for your note.

Yes, it was my intention to use a semi-transparent background. I also used the same font that appeared on my own bank statements. The Bank of Wessex is of course a fictitious bank as is the addressee. If you know anything about the legend of King Arthur, you will probably understand the fiction that I used. Martinvl (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm ok, you'll use the image for an article? -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 17:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

MOS

Hi,

The MOS is currently under discussion. Edit warring over drastic and unilateral changes will only get you blocked. — kwami (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kwami,

Thank you for your note.

I appreciate your concern - I have been trying to get this change done for some time, but edit-waring over dashes led to this article being locked. There was a discussion which is now somewhere in the archives. Part of the reasons for the change that I made is to overcome the problems related above.

BTW, I made a very similar change to the section on Units of Measure a few months ago which was well received.

Regards Martinvl (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing this and any others you've spotted. It was unintended and I reverted some too. I'm doing a huge run to fix massive overlinking of common units and some false positives got through my old process. I've updated the process and it shouldn't happen again. Thanks very much. Lightmouse (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help at the IoP workshop. MGJ (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Avogadro

Distinguish properly between Avogadro constant and Avogadro number --RGForbes (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Martin, thank you for helping at the Institute of Physics Wikipedia workshop. By being knowledgable, patient, and helpful, you helped Wikimedia UK create a very positive and professional impression. I hope you'll be involved in future Wikimedia UK events. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

M5 coordinates

As I think you know, there is no consensus one way or another in the RJL discussion. There clearly is no space consideration in the M5 table; and separate columns for coordinates is pretty much a de facto standard for tables, as a perusal of the following links demonstrates. I could point you to a couple of thousand more such tables, but you get the drift. Some members of highways projects may want to play silly buggers over this, but fortunately they do now own the articles in question. On wikipedia, we are about providing the best service for our readers. Our readers are not best served by providing partial information where the complete picture can be provided with nil downside. I trust you will reconsider you position, or else point me to settled policy or guidelines forbidding such information. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Arctic_Circle#Geography
• CIM-10_Bomarc#Operators
• LORAN#List_of_LORAN-C_transmitters
• List_of_islands_of_Michigan#Lake_Erie
• Panama_Canal#Layout
• Vandenberg_Air_Force_Base#Launch_sites
• South_Georgia_and_the_South_Sandwich_Islands#South_Sandwich_Islands_2
• List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_world#Tallest_structure_by_category
• River_Parrett#Route_and_points_of_interest
• Geography_of_Cuba#Extreme_points
• List_of_cities_in_Canada#Alberta
• Antarctic_Circle#Geography_and_demographics
• Splashdown_(spacecraft_landing)#Locations_of_splashdowns
• Box_Tunnel#Geographical_location
• List_of_abbeys_and_priories_in_England#Bedfordshire
• North_Walsham_&_Dilham_Canal#Locks_and_Watermills
• River_Avon_(Bristol)#Route_and_points_of_interest
• Bridgwater_and_Taunton_Canal#Route
• Manchester_Bolton_&_Bury_Canal#Locations_of_features
• Hells_Canyon#Points_of_interest
• List_of_tallest_structures_in_the_world#List_by_height
• 2010_FIFA_World_Cup#Venues
• Longwave#List_of_longwave_broadcasting_transmitters
• Coast_Mountains#High-prominence_peaks
• List_of_communities_in_the_Northwest_Territories#Communities_recognised_by_the_Government_of_the_Northwest_Territories
• Mackenzie_River#Tributaries
• A38_road#Notable_locations
• N1_road_(South_Africa)#Tolls

• That's great. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is no consensus for including a coordinates column, period, in MOS:RJL. No matter how you spin it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither is there any consensus for excluding a coordinates column, period, in MOS:RJL. No matter how you spin it. I refer you to the second paragraph of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Then clearly you haven't read the discussion on the talk page, where almost everyone except you and PigsontheWing has made it clear that they don't want a separate column. Showing us a list that is composed entirely of non-road articles, save for two in which the junction list is not the table in question, proves absolutely nothing. Multiple editors have spoken, but feel free to break WP:3RR. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's good of you to infer that I would wish to break 3RR. Your good faith overwhelms. I would rather you read para 2 of otherstuff, and also Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#Precedent_in_usage, and explain why none of this affects road junction lists. There is - to my perception - a long history of your side ducking all discussion and insisting that no consensus means no consensus to do stuff you don't want done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The debate continues on WP:RJL. Martinvl (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Etiquette regarding extension of discussion onto policy pages

It would have been appropriate to inform talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom of your proposal at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Polls and surveys.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable accusations

These accusations that you put on my talk page are unjustified. Your behaviour is becoming disruptive. Please calm down and go back to the articles you mention and try to justify your misleading contributions. Your metrication POV-pushing agenda has become all too apparent across a number of associated articles recently and your rude and inflammatory reactions to my toning-down of your attempts is becoming intolerable. We have made some constructive process on some articles; please try to assume good faith and we may be able to resolve the issues with some of the other articles in question. -- de Facto (talk). 15:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) I disagree. A brief glance through your contributions for the past few months show that while you are intently devoted to metric/imperial things, especially in Britain, you have also recently jumped ship into three articles that you don't have a history of editing which Martinvl does, seemingly to instigate.[2][3][4] In most cases you have made incorrect assumptions and just gone through cutting apart articles of which you have no real understanding. Please stop, or I will happily back Martinvl at his ANI thread. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If you had done your research more thoroughly you'd have seen the trail from Metrication in the United Kingdom through Driver location signs to both Kilometre and Milestone. That path was taken to attempt to correct the misrepresentations being perpetrated. A quick reading of my edit comments and/or any associated talkpage discussion at each stage will quickly confirm that. Your time would be better spent checking the record of this poster amongst the metric/imperial related articles and seeing if you can spot the trait that has lead us here. -- de Facto (talk). 16:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Introduction to the metric system

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Introduction to the metric system. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Metric system. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Metric system - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. AstroCog (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of M1 motorway junction list

The article M1 motorway junction list has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

you want user reaction? Utterly redundant.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of M1 motorway junction list for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article M1 motorway junction list is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1 motorway junction list until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Metric system

Your introduction will stand a much better chance of survival if you create it at Portal:Metric system. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:M1 motorway junction list

Template:M1 motorway junction list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Imzadi 1979 → 22:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

More unacceptable behaviour by you in Metrication in the United Kingdom

Martinvl, you are pushing the limits of our tolerance of your behaviour in this article. Earlier, despite the matter of the Which?/Asda content being the subject of ongoing discussions, both in the article and on a couple of noticeboards - in which your interpretation of the material has been rejected - you made an inflammatory edit reverting that content and shoe-horning your POV of the material into the article. In that edit you also introduced other non-NPOV changes of wording to another section. I later removed an unsourced sentence from the lead of the article which asserted that children were not being tought how to manipulate imperial units, which you immediately reverted with the pointed and infammatory edit comment: "Reverted as per WP:POINT". Please try and cooperate with other editors on this article and assume good faith, and try not to antagonise others by the use of intolerant language in edit summary wording and by personalising disagreements by throwing around unsubstantiated accusations and intimidatory threats of disciplinary action on talk pages. -- de Facto (talk). 16:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Be my guest and lodge a formal complaint! Martinvl (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning

You are now on 5RR at Metrication in the United Kingdom. Please stop edit warring or you may be reported and blocked. Pfainuk talk 22:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reported you at WP:ANI/3RR for your sixth revert in 24 hours.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hey Martinvl, thanks for all of your efforts to help Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it seems that some other editors have a difference of opinion in this case - I would ask that you stop reverting their reverts, and instead go over to the article's talk page to discuss the changes with them. Please also take a look at this policy and make sure that you don't continue edit warring. Thanks, and have a great day. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible block at Metrication in the United Kingdom

Hello Martinvl. It seems that you've been steadily reverting against other editors since October 6, and there is no evidence of any consensus on the talk page in favor of your changes. If you will promise to stop warring on this article, you may be able to avoid sanctions. I urge you to respond at WP:AN3#User:Martinvl reported by User:VsevolodKrolikov (Result: ) and agree to wait for a talk page consensus before reverting again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Metrication in the United Kingdom. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=See below}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Martinvl reported by User:VsevolodKrolikov (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Firstly, the administrator concerned ignored a reasonable procedural request and secondly that no notice was taken of other parties who were undermining the integrity of Wikipedia by pushing WP:POV via persistent misrepresentation of a WP:RS. I have requested that the block be put on hold while mandatory mediation between the reporter, User:DeFacto and myself takes place. Full details below (User:Martinvl#Unblock request)

Decline reason:

You were appropriately warned about WP:3RR, yet continued. The block is well-founded, and necessary to protect the project from the hazards of edit-wars. There are very very few exceptions to the 3RR policy, and you were already advised this was not one of them. This extremely brief block gives you the opportunity to read the related policies: WP:EW, WP:3RR, and most especially WP:DR. While blocked, prepare your "case" for WP:DR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I wish to appeal against this blockage on the following grounds:

1. The placing of a block weas premature because no notice was taken by the administrators of my request entitled Procedural Request by Martinvl to Administrators and in particular the phrase I await guidance from the administrators as to how they wish to proceed.
2. The placing of a block on me and not on other editors invovled was unjustified because no notice was taken of WP:POV pushing by the persistent misrepresentation of the content of a WP:RS is by the reporter and more especially by by User:DeFacto (who has also been WP:HOUNDing me and provoking me by WP:POINT). This situation was not helped by the actions of USER:Pfainuk who was [[WP:GAME]ing the system to score points off User:Michael Glass in the same artcile at the same time time and who decided to score some points off me at the same time. PfainUK has in the past used WP:GAME and WP:SYN to promote his own POV, provoking both Michael Glass and myself. Had the adminstrators not ignored my procedural request, I would have laid the above allegations out in more detail.

Since I am effectively alleging that the reporter and DeFcto are undermining the integrity of Wikipedia, I request that:

1. My blockage be put on hold.
2. My allegations regarding POV by persistent misrepresentation of the content of a RS be submitted for compulsory mediation.
3. Once the mediators have reported back, my reverts be reassessed in the light of the conduct of other editors who were invovled. Martinvl (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I am an admin, but I'm not acting as one here, just giving advice and making comments. First of all, you want to use the {{unblock}} template as that will get your request actually noticed. Secondly... it seems that the blocking admin was being quite generous here. 3RR is there for a reason - there's no point in constantly reverting, and it's disruptive. You stop and discuss before you keep revert warring. Now, should other editors have been blocked, I don't know, I haven't looked into their edits.

Also, a 3RR block isn't a "Wikipedia death sentence" - look at my block log. Granted, due to the specific circumstances I might have been able to successfully appeal that block, but I didn't and it's there. Oh well. It doesn't affect me or my editing today. --Rschen7754 09:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

3RR on Metrication in the United Kingdom

Martinvl, beware - you don't need another block! -- de Facto (talk). 14:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Martinvl: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Alpha Quadrant, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-compliance with Verifiability policy

I have raised your belief that the German Wikipedia is a reliable source at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Treating German Wikipedia as a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Foot (unit). Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please do not reference articles to articles on Wikipeida or any other wiki. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Foot

Just a word of thanks for all the work you have put in at Foot (unit). The article is, in my opinion, much improved as a result, although it still has, again in my opinion, a very long way to go yet. I'd like to apologise for rather forcing your hand over the matter of the circular references; I'd also like to apologise for having done so little myself in the way of referencing, after we had agreed to work on it together. Do I understand that you are fluent in Dutch? That is a valuable talent indeed. I will try to make some positive contributions to the article myself soon; meanwhile, I have removed the unreferenced stuff from the "History" section ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers

Thank you for your note - all appologies accepted. You will notice that I have worked six contemporary references into the text so that you do not have to hunt for them in the references. I can read Dutch reasonable well, but I hesitate to write it - learning Afrikaans in school in South Africa wrecked my chances of sorting out the Dutch grammar unless I put a lot of work into it. I read a little German and was able to guess my way around the French references by understanding the subject matter plus a few words.

Regards Martinvl (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Offensive accusations

This addition that you made to the Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#A question for the mediator discussion was unjustified and unnecessary. Given the care and attention, not to mention time, that I give to improving the policy compliance (especially NPOV) in articles, I found the allegations extremely offensive (particularly the one of being disruptive). Please retract it all immediately. Also, I would like to recommend that you read WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY to help you to improve your attitude towards, and relationships with, other editors. -- de Facto (talk). 12:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, you are sailing close to the wind now, please cease the intimidatory and inflammatory remarks and messages. -- de Facto (talk). 21:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Martinvl/2011: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Alpha Quadrant, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Lies and damned lies

Martinvl, this post of yours is unacceptable.

You characterise my contributions to Wikipedia that you reverted as "rubbish", despite the fact that they generally re-emerge fully supported by community consensus.

You also falsely accused me of "trapping" you into a 3RR situation. The only role I played in that (you were reported by another editor after ignoring his warnings) was to defend myself against the absurd and unjust allegations you made about me there, in your own (bad faith) defence.

I am a patient and tolerant person by nature, and can accept a certain amount of "robust" interaction, even false, but good-faith allegations, but when it comes to the vindictive spreading of downright lies in an attempt to defend your indefensible actions, I reserve the right to draw the line. You have ignored my challenges over other examples of your disgraceful behaviou above, are you going to do the decent thing this time, and retract your allegations on JimWae's talkpage - or have I got to waste more time dealing with your vile spew? -- de Facto (talk). 12:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you standing by what you wrote on JimWae's page? -- de Facto (talk). 20:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice sought from Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

I'm sorry, but I've waited long enough for you to respond to the various posts I've made above related to civility issues I have with you. I've resorted to asking for advice as to how to deal with you at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#False accusations and general incivility. -- de Facto (talk). 16:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Basically you have tried my patience for a long time. There appear to be a number of gaps in your knowledge - yes we all have gaps in our knowledge, but in certain areas you appear not to know that you don't know and you do not acknowledge that maybe, just maybe sometimes other people might know a bit more about certain subjects than you do - you would do well to learn from them rather than casting doubt on perfectly valid objections. To make matters worse, you home page is completely annonymous - I know nothing about you - I don't know whether to treat you as a naïve sixteen-year old or as a person of maturity. I don't know what sort of things I can take for granted that you know, and quite frankly I am tired of having to cover all my bases when responding to you and having to respond to facile objections. If you go ahead with this compalint, I will have to raise a PoV complaint and it will be very strong, so will you withdraw your complaint and we will call it quits. Martinvl (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't make this easy to resolve with that rather arrogant and condescending sounding response. You don't need to know anything about me to be civil. You don't have to throw accusations around because you know nothing about me. It's certainly no excuse for not answering my many requests for retraction (or justification) of your allegations. I have made no complaint, just a request for advice as to how to handle the situation as I see it. If you address (and we resolve) the issues as itemised in the request, particularly the one on JimWae's talkpage, then I guess I/we can close that request as resolved somehow.

Remember: this is just a question of civility; nothing to do with article content, just how we can co-exist reasonably harmoniously. -- de Facto (talk). 15:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me deal with the first point that you raised: [5]. You deleted the phrase about children not being taught how to manipulate imperial measures. I don't know how old you are - I did my primary and secondary education in the 1950's and 1960's. During that period we were drilled with adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing pounds, shillings and pence, stones, pounds and ounces, gallons, quarts and pints and so on. We were also drilled in the handling of vulgar fractions. Decimal numbers were introduced at a comparitively late stage in my education (aboutthe age of 11 or 12). With the advent of decimalisation and metrication there was a big change in the way in which arithmetic (maths) was taught - all the teaching of how to manipulate non-decinal systems went out of the window as did the details of handling fractions and in its place, the manipulation of decinmal numbes was started two or three years earlier. If you are old enough to remember this, then you can see why I said that you were making a point; if you had a grounding in maths (A Level or better) what I write should have been self-evident to you and you can see why I said that you were making a point. If you are not of the generation that learnt how to handle the imperial system at school and you have not studied maths at A Level, then you should have been careful not to remove things of which you have littel understanding, ort at any rate be prepared to listen to those who do have some understanding.

By taking a very "purist" line and engaging me to either back down or to spend a lot of time looking up references for things that are common sense, yo uhave slowed down my contributions elsewhere in Wikipedia and you have also been disrupting my real life wit han extremely tedious approach. I trust now that you understand he problems that yo uhave been causing; also you might understand why adopting total annonymity has made it difficult to address issues. Martinvl (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Martin, being "right" (scare quotes intended) does not give an editor free pass to be rude, or to make things up. The particular charge against De Facto about trapping you in 3RR is groundless. Pfainuk warned you at 4RR, I reported you once you had crossed 6RR, and then we all begged you, along with admins and other users, to recognise your behavioural issues, which even now you pretend weren't there, in a failed attempt to avoid you getting blocked. De Facto simply disagreed with you, which isn't actually actionable. If you are as venerable as you claim to be, you might start wanting to emulate such a state.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, it all sounds like bluster to me. With regard to the first point you mentioned, of the several outstanding issues, you should know, personal experience doesn't stand the test of WP:VER. I got rid of unsupported content, you reverted me alleging that my edit was a WP:POINT - still with no support for the point - and have yet to explain why you think it was (which policy or guideline do you think I was frustrated with and trying to discredit?). What about the last of the points I want you to address - how do you justify making that post to JimWae's talkpage? -- de Facto (talk). 20:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:Citation overkill#Use of citations to prove an obvious point. DeFacto did not demand a citation, he just deleted the sentence that he did not like. As explained above, this suggested to me that he was making a point. A few weeks (days?) before that happenned (and probably unbeknown to VsevolodKrolikov), DeFacto had made some wholesale deletions to the article Stone (imperial mass) in order to promote his own point of view. Before we could come to a consensus, I had to talk hiom through UK legislation regarding the use of the stone and EU legislation which said where it could not be used; I also had to remind him that the Republic of Ireland was a member of the EU - and even then he still insisted on cutting half the lede away and he argued about including the fact that stone was 6.35 kg. This is but one example. Do you wonder that I have lost patience with him. Martinvl (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence that I disagreed with here and used the edit summary to explain why: "Removed as nothing in cited ref about not teaching that". And in in fact, the references show that you were wrong with your assertion. You reverted and didn't supply a supporting ref.

Previous edits to previous articles are irrelevant, and I disagree vehemently with your characterisation of them, but we can talk about them elsewhere if you like. Please now explain your post to JimWae's talkpage. -- de Facto (talk). 21:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Martinvl/2011: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Alpha Quadrant, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at M23 motorway

Hello. I am unprotecting M23 motorway per a request on my talk page so that an editor can continue to make constructive edits to this page. I am writing this to you specifically as you were involved in a recent edit war on that page (which is not related to the request on my talk page), and I'm notifying you that any edit warring whatsoever in the next 2 weeks will be met with a block. Please don't take this as a license to edit war in the future.

Please do not interpret this as me taking anyone's specific side, or as accusing any specific editor either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Magog the Ogre

For the record, two editors were adding columns to a table and making a real dogs dinner of it, so I revoked both of them and have asked them to agree how to sort out the mess. If they continue to make a mess, I will come back to you and ask you to reprotect it. Martinvl (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable mass-reversions

Hello Martinvl, I see that you, without talkpage discussion and without any authority other than your own POV, have gone around all of the articles that I've edited in the last two or three hours - edits supported by reliable sources where necessary, and fully explained in the edit summaries - and summarily reverted all my edits. Can you please explain this bizarre and unacceptable behaviour? -- de Facto (talk). 18:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Martinvl/2011: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom with outside discussion at Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#MedCab mediation offer

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Alpha Quadrant, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:A38DriverLocationSign_km415.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:A38DriverLocationSign_km415.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sreejith K (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sreejith2000

Thank you for your e-mail. If you go to the page you will see that that the permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system; it is available as ticket 2009071410068257 for users with an OTRS account. To confirm the permission, please contact OTRS volunteers at their noticeboard. (Extracted from the OTRS notice). If you need further information, please let me know. In addition, please note that I will not have access to my e-mails related to this system until after 25 December 2011 as I am travelling.

Martinvl (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Cape foot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transvaal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)