User talk:Martinevans123

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialogue, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Martin, As you archive so regularly (unlike some editors ...) I thought that this would
a) Brighten up your page, and
b) Add a serious tone amidst all the hilarity.
All the best to you and yours –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 11:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. A lovely picture. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made a little seasonal update – hope you don't mind! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. The snow has almost vanished.
A Christian feast commemorating the resurrection of Christ; the first Sunday following the full moon that occurs on or next after the vernal equinox, neither earlier than March 22 nor later than April 25.
I hate this BST ... why can't we stick with good old GMT? (... it follows the sun after all)
Cheers!
— Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 10:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• A brand of choc ice manufactured by the British Wall's ice cream
• the act of eating

now, I ask you, what kind of alphabetical (or significance) order is that?!!

Yours, aye John Lemon

Have always loved that record. Good compilation of photographs ... who is the geezer in the middle — at 1 min 32 secs? –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 20:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, he always reminded me of Nixon!

Oh! Of course. I knew that really –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 20:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Jukebox

... my own personal permanent fixture tribute...

You turn your back for a just a second and some strange Swedish person sneaks in and steals your records!!

Are you doing ok?

Hi Martin, how are you doing? Anna (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Same thought here. Hope you are well. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Sluzzelin, I am very well. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Anna. I am doing ok, thanks. Hope you are well. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

You made my day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

awwww, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hooray! I'm glad to hear from you! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Trypto. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

story · music · places

thanks for the music, with extra plenty of music, and not even yet today's magnificent concert, with Pinchas Zukerman stepping in. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Did I miss a contretemps? I hope life and WP are treating you well. Have a rose. 'Tis the season.

Do you think they pitch Christmas as "the season to be jolly" because it rhymes with 'holly'? Which ever way up, they were very wrong. May is the season for jollity. December is for sleeping. I hope there is bright sunshine next week where you are. And roses. Anna (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Wow. Looks more like a gay peony to me!

Many thanks, Anna. If you did miss IT, glad I missed it too! " As they say in Stratford... "A rose by any other name would sound as good".... thankyou Dave Swarbrick Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Here, here! And I love that rose photo! (Old-fashioned roses are a passion of mine.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Cool. More of a new-fashioned indie fan myself! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, since the rose is Jekyll, I better go hide. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Better just go park it, dude. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of gay peonies: . --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that one is deffo Euro LGBT. Sing it Ryan! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC) (will I get banned for this? **sob**)

Well, here in the US, bigotry is back in style. But, to play it safe, maybe we both should go hide. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Tricky on a site like this one!. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

music for you, waiting to be explored --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with Felicity Lott, - my story today, - listen! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to nominate her for GA today, when people are looking. Could you please translate all foreign ref titles if you do one? 'cause consistency in such matters that don't matter is wanted by reviewers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Ha. I was hoping you could do the other German ones without having to use GoogleTranslate! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I could, and I might, but nothing on top of my todo - just uploaded a few more flower pics, for example --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

look! - and they mentioned the song I also picked ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Trypto, I'm a rose nut too - I love propagating. Is the orange baby king] trying to ban gay peonies? Putting tariffs on all pink flowers? A clear and present threat to the American people, no doubt. Anna (talk)

Yeah, there's not much I can defend about what's happening in the colony these days. As for roses, I'm very proud of Sissinghurst Castle Garden, and its section on roses. But "I love propagating" can be read more than one way! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Proud of the article or the garden? Both are great. I was there last year (the garden) and try to go regularly (not easy as I don't have a car). There is a fab B&B on site - a great treat to stay there. I love Dixter too - about 20 mins away. I hope to back in July. I love propagating roses (not popping sprogs). I have studied it for the past ten years or so and can finally get healthy rose plants from cuttings. It's a long game, but then roses are a long game. I like being involved in projects where we consider how our planting will evolve over ten (or 100) years. It's the opposite of social media. Anna (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I meant the article. Roses from cuttings, rather than from budding: that's great! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Copyright, again and again

This edit reintroduces a paragraph that is directly copied from the National Heritage List for the Church of St Mary. This text is copyrighted, per the NHL website: "All content, designs, text, graphics, software compilations and source codes on this website are the copyright of Historic England and/or its content providers. Reproduction of part or all of the contents of this website in any form is prohibited other than for individual use only".

You cannot, under any circumstances, copy text from anywhere unless you can point specifically to it being under a legitimate free license. You cannot assume, guess, or hop that the text is free. Given your history of copyright problems, you specifically ought to avoid reintroducing text that other editors removed from articles you wrote, because in my opinion you cannot be trusted to verify whether or not it is copyrighted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, thank you for checking. Your edit summary here said it was referenced to the church pamphlet by Tricker (2011). I guess you may want to request revdel. What about this re-write:

"St Mary’s is in the East Anglian style and is long and large. There is a west door and in the lowest stage there are trefoiled lancets. In the second and bell stages there are Y-tracery windows in the second stage and bell stage. The western tower may have originated in the late 12th century and has three stages. In the later 13th or early 14th century it was rebuilt. The stair turret is polygonal, but it does not reach the top of the tower."

Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC) p.s. what is your understanding of the phrase "in any form"?

Respectfully, we're about to have the same conversation we already had back in 2022, where I expressed that your rewrites are insufficient. Simply lightly editing a whole paragraph is insufficient to make it acceptable. All that does is turn it into close paraphrasing, which is still a copyright issue. Based on previous history, I'm not willing to attempt to coach you on doing rewrites, because nothing anyone tells you about this seems to stick. It's been four years and you're still doing the same thing, which indicates to me that further attempts to assist you will not make any more difference.

My understanding of the phrase "in any form" is the straightforward common sense one - it's copyrighted text and you can't copy it into Wikipedia (or anywhere else). Write it in your own words, then cite. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I see. Sorry but I am unable to suggest any synonyms for those technical architectural terms. Nor, for example, for words such as "long", "large", "stage", "century", etc. Sorry also that you feel you cannot make any further attempts to assist and that you think I cannot be trusted. I'm still a bit unsure about the difference between "in any form" and "in exact form"; surely "in any form" includes re-writes of these facts in one's own words? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not about synonyms, Martin, it's about the fact that you can't just lift an entire paragraph, fiddle it lightly, and call it a day when the word choice, facts presented, and order of sentences are all obviously borrowed from the source. If you can look at a source and tell immediately that the entire paragraph in the article was taken from the source, you're not writing in your own words.

This is the same thing you were doing in 2022 - I'll quote myself: "what you've done with this version is to remove some detail and slightly reorder some sentences. It's still fundamentally the same text as the version I looked at a week ago, which means it is still recognizably taken from the source."

There is a difference between actually writing in your own words, cited to a source, and doing close paraphrasing, which is what you're still doing. I'm not arguing with you about it, I'm not lawyering about the definition of "reproduction", I'm done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, maybe it's best if I'm done too. Goodbye. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Facepalm The first day back? Martin, don't just go away. If you want, I'll give a second try to trying to working with you to fix it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but after four years we're back to square one, it seems. Sorry I even linked PMC in my edit summary. It's not worth the hassle. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Not to jump in uninvited on something that seems to be settled. That paraphrase is definitely too close. Let me show you how I would paraphrase that:

St. Mary's was constructed in the usual fashion for East Anglia. It is of substantial size and considerably long. Possibly originating in the late 12th century, the west tower was rebuilt in the late 13th or early 14th century. There are three stages to the tower; the lowest stage has a west door and trefoiled lancets, while the second and bell stages have Y-tracery windows. The south stair is polygonal and does not reach the top of the church tower.

You need to write new sentences and use a different structure. You need to restate what it says in your own words, not hack up the existing sentences you are quoted. This definitely gets to be a WP:CIR issue. Also not a difficult skill to learn. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC) edited 19:20, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'll let you. Thanks for your contribution. But I see, not only untrustworthy, but also incompetent. I'd be tempted to put "'The tower has three stages: ", to be clearer. And I'd have linked trefoiled lancets, Y-tracery and south stair turret. Great to hear it's not difficult. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I had just gone back and changed the word to "there are three stages to the tower" before I saw your reply. It was just meant to be an illustration not a polished product. I'm not familiar with the topic, I'd have to research the terms more to do a final job. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

You're very welcome to go ahead and "do a final job" on this article. Perhaps with the help of my dear friend and mentor Tryptofish? If you go back to the article's creation in 2012, before it was "presumptively stubified" in 2022, you'll see what I had wanted to include. It's such a shame that such a huge church still has such a short article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

If you don't want to work on it that's up to you. I'm not familiar with why there might be heightened emotions in this situation. CIR isn't an accusation, it's just a fact. Wikipedia editors are expected to be competent to paraphrase material they are quoting, and to be trusted not to violate copyrights. Seems foundational to the project doesn't it? It'd be much easier just not to violate copyrights and continue editing Wikipedia wouldn't it?

Also the paraphrasing I did is really bare minimum. That is the least amount the source material should be transformed. It'd be better to transform it more, as much as you possibly can. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, thought that was your best shot at a lesson for me. You’ve been here since 2017, me since 2007. The heightened emotion seems to have arisen from my incompetence and untrustworthiness. Yes, without the violation, the encyclopedia is safer without me. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This is your material right? If you think that's a paraphrasing of this then either I am very confused or you are? Can you explain what is happening for me? I don't understand the apparent histrionics and feel like I am missing some necessary context. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Well I don't remember anything about you or your editing so I have no bias. You can't be surprised that someone suspects you are acting a little unusually. I was just curious about the dispute here, I looked at the paraphrasing in question compared to the source, and I thought that whatever is going on, this is not ok paraphrasing. So if you don't care to explain that's fine as well. I'm sorry for whatever is causing you drama. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure there’s any “dispute”. So sorry if someone thinks I’m “acting a little unusually”. From my perspective it all looks quite logical. My beef with PMC centered on the claim it had anything to do with Tricker (2011). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Martin, as you say, the church deserves a better article than it currently has. And there is an abundance of sourcing and of notability; almost two pages in Pevsner, entry in Jenkins, one of Suffolk’s largest, monuments by Eric Gill, Maggi Hambling, etc. etc. Why don’t we work it up together over the next week. I could do with a distraction just now. KJP1 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello KJP. So good to see you. And positive as ever. Yes agree, an abundance. Sorry, am currently too busy being histrionic diva quit retired, it seems. At last PMC has given up. I need a cause to hang onto...: . I might change my mind tomorrow (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It’s good to see you back too, Martin. My Wikiworld is diminished without you around. And no rush. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow… Just as suits. KJP1 (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

So much here for me to reply to! Thank you, Martin, for the excessively kind words. And, in spite of Martin having gone to the retirement home, he is also hanging out quite productively at (at least) Talk:St Mary's Church, Hadleigh, where he and I are having a fun time sorting out how not to paraphrase too closely. I could definitely use some help from other editors, so please let me suggest that we localize all the discussion about that page over there, as opposed to here. I'd also like to ask that any editors who join us there work with the way that I'm trying to make this a learning experience, rather than at cross purposes with that, thanks.

And as for my soliloquizing friend KJP1, I'm happy to see you back around, too. Turns out he just got another GA today, congrats! And over at another British wiki-dust-up, this one at Talk:Carlton House Terrace (what is it with you lot? don't you know that we Amerricuns are supposed to be the bitter ones around here? get with the program!), there's been a bit of forward progress, in finding some better sources. But that's another page where I'll shamelessly canvass for more eyes. (And KJP1, if you want any advice from me about the dispute, please don't hesitate to ask.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, agree we should discuss at Talk:St Mary's Church, Hadleigh. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

He who laughs last, laughs loudest!

• Martin seems to be following the same path as Gavin.collins and ClemRutter but is wise to hold back rather than fighting to the finish. I am reminded of 1066 and All That which described the sides in another conflict as the Roundheads (who were Right but Repulsive) and the Cavaliers (who were Wrong but Wromantic). Martin is undoubtedly a Laughing Cavalier, eh? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

So, after multiple copyvio blocks, and two days after the start of this section, you made this edit

• "In March 2025 Widdicombe revealed that severe burnout led to him suffering a "mental collapse", in 2022. experienced "horrific panic-attack-led insomnia" during the breakdown. Writing in the The i Paper, Widdicombe said: "Like a lot of people who think there’s some sort of shame or stigma involved, I was initially very resistant to taking antidepressants." He undertook multiple rounds of talking therapy and began meditating in order to "readjust that feeling of inadequacy and reorganise his priorities.""

Source

• "Josh Widdicombe has revealed severe burnout led to him suffering a “mental collapse” in 2022. [...] experienced “horrific panic-attack-led insomnia” during the breakdown. [...] Writing in The i Paper, Widdicombe said: “Like a lot of people who think there’s some sort of shame or stigma involved, I was initially very resistant to taking antidepressants. [...] The comedian underwent multiple rounds of talking therapy and began meditating in order to “readjust that feeling” of inadequacy and reorganise his priorities."

I have no idea why people here keep spending their time explaining copyvio to you and holding your hands as if with just a little bit of mentoring this will suddenly stop happening. Fram (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Taking a text and then rewording it so that it presents exactly the same facts but uses different words in a different order is a non-trivial puzzle. People who don't find this easy are obviously likely to give up quickly and use shortcuts such as close paraphrase. LLM technology is the sensible answer now as such tools are able to do this easily but the witch hunters are trying to stop that too.

The challenge is reconciling several different goals:

1. Working closely from sources to avoid "original research"
2. Accurately copying the facts from the sources
3. Not copying the language of the sources
4. Not using tools such as LLMs to do this automatically
5. Doing this cheaply without being paid

These constraints are not compatible and so there is a natural tension between them. It's like the project management triangle, ""Good, fast, cheap. Choose two." And Gavin Collins insisted that if you changed the language of the sources then you were engaging in original research. This would generate copyright issues and so he had to go but he had a point. To do this properly you have to distil the semantics out of the text using approaches like WikiData and the Abstract Wikipedia. But Fram doesn't like those either, does he?

An interesting question is why the copyright enforcers on Wikipedia are so zealous. I don't get the impression that they actually care about the copyright holders or the articles in question; it just seems to be a game pursued for its own sake. The WMF and the copyright holders don't seem so concerned about it as they seem to give the matter little attention and priority. Meanwhile other major sites on the Internet such as Google, the Internet Archive and ChatGPT are quite aggressive in pushing the boundaries of copyright and fair use. This is giving them a big edge while Wikipedia hobbles itself.

Anyway, I just ran the current FA through Earwig to see what it could find. It gets a score of 25% which seems due to liberal use of quotations. Quotations get hassle too and so there isn't a risk-free approach. So it goes. I don't have an easy answer but it seems good to understand its difficulty.

Andrew🐉(talk) 15:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

"These constraints are not compatible"? Most editors have no issue combining these constraints, and had no issues during the decades that LLMs weren't available. While I don't like Abstract Wikipedia (I have no issue with Wikidata as a concept, just not most of its applications on enwiki), I have no idea what my likes or dislikes have to do with whether Martinevans followed policies or not. Fram (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

"Most editors"? According to WP:EDITORS, 70% of accounts don't make even one edit. And the most prolific editors tend to be gnomes that make lots of content-free edits or create cookie-cutter stubs like Lugnuts. The proportion of editors that add enough text to risk copyright concern is quite tiny.

It would be interesting to see some stats about the edits that add substantial blocks of text. What proportion of these are cut/paste from external sources? How many are close paraphrases of some sort? How many are LLM generated? And how many are formulaic description of standard topics like species, footballers and the like? My impression is that writing in one's own words, having digested a multiplicity of sources without original research or synthesis is almost non-existent. This idealised model of editing is utterly unrealistic.

Andrew🐉(talk) 16:22, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

And yet most articles with actual non-boilerplate text are not copyright violations, and other editors who add too many copyright violations anyway are blocked. This model has served us well for 25 years now. If you want to dispute the policy, the best place would be the policy talk page. But disagreeing with policy to protect oe editor is not really a good approach. I don't think continuing this metadiscussion here is useful. Fram (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Neither do I. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The point is that Fram seems to be suggesting that Martin is exceptional but my impression is that their approach is not that unusual – they are perhaps just more careless or carefree than other editors who attempt this sort of work. It still seems useful to explore how this arises because it's not unusual.

As I indicated above, I've seen others fall foul of this such as ClemRutter who has been indeffed for about 5 years now. Now Clem was a teacher and so was presumably proficient at writing to some extent. They are retired now and rather aged so perhaps they lacked the energy or enthusiasm for rewriting text which seemed already good enough. I think of this as a form of writer's block; a reluctance to change an authoritative text for fear of making it worse.

One factor in this might be general education. When I was in school, I got an English language O-level without any difficulty. That covered basic writing skills but when I went to university I had to pass a separate Use of English qualification. The main thing that sticks in my mind about this is that the exam included a précis question. In this, a long passage had to be summarised in fewer words. I remember this especially because there had been no formal education in my ordinary English lessons about how to do this; or not that I remember. So, I had to figure out how to summarise a passage and mostly just used my common sense – cutting out fluff and focusing on the key points. This seems to be a key skill that Wikipedia writing requires.

So, with this context, please can Martin explain why they are paraphrasing too closely. Is it that they don't understand the issue; or that they don't agree with the need for it; or that they don't know how to do it because it has never been explained to them; or what?

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Andrew you are always welcome at this Talk page. And thanks for raising a very interesting set of questions. I tend to agree with you. Most of my edit there was direct quotation, inside quotation marks. Perhaps someone can tell us what the limit for quotation is, in terms of number of words or percentage content, before an addition becomes "close paraphrasing" or "copyvio". I'm happy to go back and re-phase it. Or trim. But of course if it is a copyvio, as Fram says it is, then the first action should be to delete it and, if necessary, rev-del it. If he thinks it's likely I'll commit more copyvio, he ought to block me as a preventative measure. (p.s. I got an English language A-level without any difficulty, but I don't remember having to precis anything...) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

As I understand it, there are no hard limits for these things; it's very much a matter of degree and subjective interpretation.

Another factor that occurs to me is the time at which one was educated. When I got my education, there was no Internet, PCs, tablets, smartphones; none of these things existed then. As a vacation job when I was a student, I actually sold encyclopedias one year and they were physical books, not electronic.

So, my point is that my education didn't say much about plagiarism or the like because it was not then possible to just Google something and cut/paste it. It's much more of an issue in modern education and so presumably gets a lot more emphasis and formal attention with tools like Turnitin. Perhaps this is an issue for older editors who may take it less seriously because it hasn't been beaten into them.

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, if only I'd had ChatGPT to write the plagiaristic bits of my undergraduate 4th-year Psychology thesis for me. Or even Claude (... it might have been a real bunker buster), I might now be a real Wiki maven. Andrew, that's a very germane point; you're always welcome here because no-one could accuse you of being an overbearing policy-wonking twat. Fram, I'm trying to imagine anyone wanting to hold your hand. But failing, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

This talk section needs to be retitled "Copyright, again and again". Fram has said a couple of things that I agree with. One of them is that he wonders why other editors (that's gotta include me) keep trying to help Martin, when Martin keeps doing the same things over and over again. I'm wondering that, too. Martin, I know this must be annoying for you, and it's understandable that you don't want to feel like anyone is talking down to you. I wouldn't want that, either, if it were directed at me. But you have a real problem here, especially in terms of being able to continue as a member of the Wikipedia community. I've looked at Fram's comparison of the edit and the source, and I agree with Fram about that, too. That's not OK, and it must not keep happening. No amount of joking around is going to make that problem go away. I want to help you, I really do. But you have to want to be helped. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I've had about enough seeing this additional incident. I don't know the social history that seems to be granting Martin so much leeway, but he simply does not understand and either cannot understand or does not want to understand. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Learning to paraphrase is part of schooling. When this is first introduced I'm not certain but it's expected by college/university. If someone cannot paraphrase a source without violating its copyright I don't see how they are qualified to edit an encyclopedia. Anyway, the rules are no copyright violations, and this is not the place to debate those rules. Martin needs to stop copying texts.

People have patiently demonstrated and described how to paraphrase things. Martin either doesn't want to do it or can't do it. This is no longer the place to discuss it, I think that's going to be ANI. It's unfortunate because Martin seems to have solid knowledge about the church topic. Without an ability to write at a basic level, that knowledge doesn't translate into good edits - also without knowing when he's reached his limits. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

DIYeditor, I share your concerns, and I'm about to start a new talk section here, where I will attempt to salvage things. But I want you to understand that, when you posted your own suggested rewrite at the article talk page, you contributed further to the problem (unintentionally, of course), by doing "Martin's writing" for him, instead of pushing him to do it himself. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm a little uncertain about the outcome, or anticipated outcome, of this "additional incident". If Fram sees it as copyright violation, I'm not sure why he hasn't already removed it and revision-deleted it, or at least opened a discussion thread at Talk:Josh Widdicombe. Since I added it three days ago, a number of other editors - including Katherine.Seymour7, MIDI, Max263, Malerooster and Spicemix - have made further edits without deleting or commenting on that addition. I guess they haven't noticed. I think most editors don't have the inclination to check. That job's left to eagle-eyed administrators who have good reason to check my text additions? I might be tempted to try again, but that might involve ignoring what you have termed the "Last-ditch proposal" in the new thread below. Is there any way we could clarify the status of that three-sentence paragraph at Josh Widdicombe before we move on? I suspect that —DIYeditor will also have a view on this. Or should I just delete it myself and request a rev-del from an admin? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

My guess is that the simplest thing is to undo the edit you made that Fram objects to, without doing anything further, and if anyone else wants to do something further, they can do it themselves. I don't see any issues with you self-reverting. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

That job's left to eagle-eyed administrators who have good reason to check my text additions?

No. You are responsible for paraphrasing and being able to be trusted that you won't copy text nearly verbatim from the sources you're using. That's the point. We need to be able to assume you understand what paraphrasing means and that copying text is prohibited. Even paraphrasing is sketchy. As I said, the rewrite I did of that passage is the very least you could do while keeping fully within the spirit of the law and wikipedia's policies.

Can you follow instructions? Try following these that I already posted:

1. If a sentence has two different ideas in the source, and especially if one of those ideas might be found in an upcoming sentence, split the sentence up and recombine them in new ways.
2. Phrase things in a different part of speech and with different idioms than the original if possible.
3. Don't re-use any word unless the source words are the only reasonable choice.
4. Don't copy whole paragraphs even in spirit. Break things up into your own paragraphs.

I honestly at this point am not sure you are capable of following such a set of instructions. And I'm just some guy, not even an admin. I don't think there is any set of rules you would be willing or able to follow and apply. Can go over over the example I gave piece by piece and compare to the source and see what I did? I'm not confident you could do so. That becomes CIR. Not trying to give you are hard time. I'm all for nuanced and flexible application of rules. This is over the line. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

DIY, I'm still a little unsure what brought you to my Talkpage here in the first place. Could you enlighten me? Sorry, but you are suggesting I should have used your 4 instructions to re-write that paragraph? I assume that you agree with Fram it is copyvio (and so should be rev-deled)? Let me ask my question in a different way... when you see that somone has added sourced material to an article you watch, do you typically go and check that the addition is not copy-vio or close paraphrasing? Do you typically run an Earwig check? I tend to always provide source for my additions, so a visual check or Earwig comparison are generally pretty easy. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't remember what I was looking at that led me to this page. I saw that there was a question about paraphrasing which I found interesting, and I looked at it and I saw what was not even an attempt to paraphrase some text. So I said hey look, this is the kind of thing you would need to do, thinking an example would be the most helpful bit I could add. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Basically the steps to paraphrase are "easy steps to cheat copyright" and not good scholarship themselves. You are falling short of even "easy steps to cheat". —DIYeditor (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I doubt that Fram or the others are actually interested in Widdicombe or the copyright holders. Either it's just a stick to beat you with or it's "someone is wrong on the Internet" obsessiveness.

Anyway, I just edited the passage as I saw fit – boiling it down by removing most of the complex context which was difficult to parse and just focussing on the key facts. I didn't change the key words as it would be debatable whether anxiety=panic attack or burnout=stress and so it seemed safer to stick to the words used by the sources.

AFAIC this was just routine copy-editing and we should not get too excited about copyright because such cases are de minimis.

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Too late for rev-del then? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Having a rev-del done against your account is not something to ask for. It's not good. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you mean. sorry. Rev-del of copyvio is standard practice, wherever it appears, even on this Talk page, if that is indeed what it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Without consulting any specific policy, prolifically causing rev-dels of your edits is going to be grounds for sanctions or blocking... —DIYeditor (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know, admins have a duty of care to rev-del material that is a violation of copyright, provided it is practical to do so. Over the years I myself have reported many examples of copyvio (usually direct paste and copy of large amounts of text) to admins such as User:Diannaa and rev-del has usually been swiftly forthcoming. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Andrew, this is not helpful, and I'm asking you to stop. This is about more than just intellectual property rights under copyright, as important as those are. This is also about plagiarism and intellectual honesty in writing. As you said, these things can usually be fixed by routine copyediting, but Martin needs to learn how to either do that routine fixing himself, or not create a situation where other editors have to do it for him. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree this is an scholarly ethics issue pure and simple. Legal and policy and everything else aside, this is not ok behavior, and we should not pretend it's ok. We are _editors_ here, volunteer or not. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You think my editing is unethical? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to elbow in here, and say that plagiarism is unethical. That's not the same thing as saying that all of your editing is unethical, or that you as a person are unethical. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Isn't plagiarism when you don't provide any source(s) and pretend you've thought it up yourself? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

No, it can be that, but it can also be presenting something as though you wrote the words (here, in "Wikipedia's voice"), when it is actually words copied, or copied with minimal revision, from a source written by someone else. Citing a source doesn't get one off the hook in that situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding quotation marks generally helps? But I was still waiting for a more definitive answer to my question about proportion. cambridge.org: "the process or practice of using another person's ideas or work and pretending that it is your own". If you provide the source(s), the pretence rather fades away I feel Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding quotation marks and attributing it in a manner that makes clear who said it removes it entirely from being plagiarism, because that's being accurate about whose words they are. But, as I remember mentioning recently, simply peppering a page with passages within quotation marks becomes WP:QUOTEFARM. Proportion does indeed matter, as does whether there are words that do not lend themselves to paraphrase, but it requires judgment to ascertain whether enough is enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Andrew has kindly removed the single direct quotation from Widdicombe, which was enclosed by quotation marks in both in the source and in my addition. Does that stop it being copy-vio? I'm not sure that extended into QUOTEFARM territory. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Andrew's edit, , looks to me to be a good one. I'm not seeing it as having removed material that was within quotation marks. It also changed material that was outside of the quotation marks, by revising it according to the principles that, for example, have been listed here by DIYeditor. Those changes made it no longer a close paraphrase of the source, but rather a passage rewritten in original language while keeping the intended meaning. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The meaning that I intended, included the verbatim quote from Widdicombe. That may or may not align with the intention of The Independents reporter Lydia Spencer-Elliott or the original The i Paper article here. I guess that's a subjective judgement, not a question of copyright violation. I still don't see how a direct quote, presented within quotation marks, is a "close paraphrase". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Based on Fram's complaint, above, the source I'm considering is Spencer-Elliot. There isn't a problem with direct quotes, within quotation marks, from Widdicombe. The issue is the language by Spencer-Elliot, and how that compares with the language in your edit. She wrote: "...revealed severe burnout led to him suffering a "mental collapse" in 2022." No problem with you reproducing "mental collapse" in quotation marks. But what you wrote was "...revealed that severe burnout led to him suffering a "mental collapse", in 2022." And Andrew changed that to "In 2022, Widdicombe suffered from burnout, panic attacks and insomnia." I hope you can see the difference. What you had – outside of the quote marks – was almost identical to the source, with differences that aren't enough to prevent it from being plagiarism. Andrew's wording fixed that. The source (Spencer-Elliot) wrote: "Writing in The i Paper, Widdicombe said: [quote]... The comedian underwent multiple rounds of talking therapy and began meditating in order to [quote]..." Your edit included: "Writing in the The i Paper, Widdicombe said: [quote]... He undertook multiple rounds of talking therapy and began meditating in order to [quote]..." All you did was to change "The comedian underwent" to "He undertook". Otherwise, you just copied it. Andrew changed it to "...and so used...", following a summary of his quote about not wanting to take antidepressants, which he changed from your direct quote. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunate that 11 words have caused so much upset. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This has become an irritation. A cessation does not seem to be forthcoming. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia even have a clear "code of ethics"? Maybe it needs one. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. I'm not convinced we need more. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It has the Universal Code of Conduct in which the relevant section seems to be Unacceptable behaviour. This does not specifically cover plagiarism or copyright but does have something to say about harassment, hounding and threats. Driving Martin away from the project when he's a good faith editor is that sort of issue. Of course, the balance of judgement is difficult in such cases and it depends who's doing the judging. Note that there are elections currently for the UCOC Coordinating Committee. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

If you're insinuating holding Martin accountable for persistent plagiarism is possibly a violation of policy, I think I'm going to be done talking to you entirely. That sort of attack doesn't help Martin here, it aggravates the situation. You are free to take this to ANI if you think there is some kind of harassment, hounding, or threats. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I think providing a direct illustration was the best way I could try to help. However it doesn't seem that illustration underwent any analysis by Martin, nor did the set of guidelines I gave (just off the cuff) for paraphrasing. We aren't school teachers. Wikipedia could certainly use a more formal way of instructing people on things like citing sources and paraphrasing that are only taught at a college level I guess. The thing is, if the existing guides aren't enough, I'm not sure handholding is even appropriate. It's clear from this case that it just doesn't work. I ran into it before with a User:Boeing720. No amount of handholding resolved the problems. I think he was a nice guy (well, he did go after Greta getting himself banned in the process) but the CIR was just too extreme. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I have given no appraisal of your "direct illustration". I had assumed that I was not best placed to provide one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The point was for you to compare the original text, your paraphrasing, and my example paraphrasing - if you cared to try to understand what people are getting at. I was just trying to help. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I do care to understand "what people are getting at", thanks. You still think these matters should all be discussed at ANI? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

No I don't think anyone wants that. It can be a really brutal process. Some people love hauling cases to ANI - the Boeing720 situation I mentioned made me feel guilty and bad (maybe needlessly). He needed to stop what he was doing though (different than in this situation). I'm not coming here laying out "steps to paraphrase" because it's really my opinion. Of course it is my opinion, but I believe it is a factual representation of expectations in paraphrasing, such as I could come up with on the spot in response to our situation here. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems to often be a matter of opinion. Tools like Earwig give scores, but those really aren't wholly objective metrics. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The only courts we really have to decide what is plagiarism for these purposes are this here, and ANI. The biggest problem this will face for you at ANI is not the initial evidence of incidences of plagiarism and failure to acknowledge such, but the ongoing refusal to acknowledge/understand the situation that might take place at ANI itself, which could compound this from a simple "please stop doing that" to being blocked. You can burn social equity trying to pursue it and hope for the best if you want. The steps I laid out for how to transform copyrighted material are not written in stone and not copied from anywhere, but you're going to find that people with experience in the topic think something similar, and not something like the understanding (if any) you are working with. The easiest thing here is to stop doing what people are objecting to. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

All right?

You all right, Martin? Bishonen | tålk 08:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC).

+1. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I thought I was ok. But apparently I cannot be trusted. So I'm going. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh FFS, that's an overreaction, Martin. You aren't someone who can't be trusted; you're just someone who effed up. People do dumb stuff all the time, and you don't need to do a diva quit over it. Just fix it, and let other people help you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Silent tears
Drop from these eyes tonight
Tears of prayer
For all those aching hearts. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Connipitions?

Alas, I'm already gone: . Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

and who will cheer me up? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Grimes2 11:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Aggressive, condescending language against Martin used in the thread above. There was never a more conscientious editor. I'm astonished he was so humble as to stick with it for so long. Thank you Martin. Spicemix (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Felicity Lott

On 20 May 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Felicity Lott, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 03:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, Spencer. Here she is accepting Gramophone’s Lifetime Achievement Award in 2023. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you see the praise on her talk? - Be proud! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

This evening Petroc Trelawny played Lott singing “Du bist die Ruh'”. Quite beautiful. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

ps: Pärt music in my story today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Gunter Hampel - a brief 2007 article, - and so much music to explore and write about! I'll look tomorrow. An actor today. Much more in German, perhaps sources to get over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

actor on main page. jazz multi-instrument player already somewhat improved, - reviews and other supporting material welcome - don't miss my story, a 2015 hook, and guess what: our conductor played the piece Schönberg arranged for orchestra as a postlude. You can listen ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hampel music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

... and today we sang in a service 2 1/2 part (of 7) from Jubilate Deo, including Ngokujabula! (With Great Rejoicing), pictured in music, - come for concerts next weekend as the poster says --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

That's a very interesting new article. I had never heard of him before. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Last-ditch proposal

Martin, I and other editors have been trying very hard to help you move along with this issue of writing without paraphrasing too closely, and it looks to me like it isn't working. It's also clear to me that the community is running out of patience, and you are very much in danger of some very serious sanctions. It will do no good for me or anyone else to pretend otherwise. At the same time, I recognize that it's unreasonable for me or anyone else to demand that you do things that, apparently, you are disinclined to do.

Nonetheless, I like you very much personally, and I note that you are one of the nicest people I've interacted with on Wikipedia. I enjoy communicating with you, and I very much want to find a way to keep you around. So I'm going to make the following proposal.

I think that you should voluntarily decide to refrain from making a certain kind of edit. This kind of edit is where you would add some text (a phrase, a sentence, or some number of sentences) to any article in mainspace, based upon some information that you have found in a source. That's a lot of potential edits, but I'm referring to that specifically. It seems to me that you run too many risks of recidivism when you make those edits, and we need to face up to that reality. So just don't tempt fate by making such edits. At all.

There would still be loads of other things that you could do. Make a correction to some error in text already written (such as when someone else's edit said something happened in 1632, but the source actually said 1635, so long as you are not creating text with words): that's still fine. Fixing spelling errors, formatting errors, links, all those kinds of gnomish edits: all of that's still fine, too. Images: no problem. Talk page discussions of all sorts: that's still fine, too. Even suggesting new text, based on a source, on an article talk page, just so long as you leave it to other editors to decide whether or not to implement it: even that would be fine. There's lots of stuff you could do, and be a clear net positive. There are many Wikipedia editors who specialize in all kinds of work other than writing text, and they are able to contribute happily.

I recognize that if I were, hypothetically, to propose this during an ANI thread, I would be laughed off of the page, because the argument would be that if we have to restrict someone like that, they simply should not be here. So that's not what I'm doing. I'm putting this here on your talk, and hoping that you will agree to it voluntarily and informally, but stick to it attentively. In that way, I hope that we can keep you around, without having this escalate to a drama board. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

That would be a fine solution to me: add no passages based on source material. Edits based on facts from source material are fine but even a whole sentence is apparently too much. Martin should in no way do the faux-paraphrasing or make any attempt to paraphrase until he is able to demonstrate on a new passage without any help a complete and thorough paraphrasing and promise to do the steps involved in that in all future cases. As has been mentioned, most editors and most edits are not attempting to add passages from source, so there are a ton of possible edits other than doing that. That is a very important role on Wikipedia, and one we need to be able to trust the people doing it on. It's certainly something I take seriously when I do, even if it's just a few bits from a news story. One needs to at least pay mind to the basics of paraphrasing...

Again, judging from the greetings and messages of support on this page, Martin has a lot of social equity here and that is valuable as well. There's no need to press this further if the faux-paraphrasing can stop. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

To put it more briefly, "a change is as good as a rest". Me, I was topic-banned from deletion matters. It was a stitch-up but I shrugged it off and have been doing other things instead as Wikipedia is a bottomless pit. Today, for example, I used AWB for the first time. I have known about it for a long time but never found the time or occasion to get to grips with it. It was an interesting puzzle to master the interface but I got it to work well enough and now I have a new string to my bow. "When one door closes, another opens". Andrew🐉(talk) 20:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

As the instigators of these latest "discussions", PMC and Fram may also have a view on this proposal. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Commenting only since you pinged me. Trypto has already described what would be my objection to this proposal: "if we have to restrict someone like that, they simply should not be here". Unfortunately, I think this is an accurate assessment. But let me be clear. I don't dislike you, Martin, and I don't want to see you leave the site. My win condition here is you writing in your own words, not you getting punished. But in my opinion, the entire discussion above makes it clear that you do not or cannot (it doesn't matter which) understand how to do so. It doesn't seem to matter how much time other editors spend explaining it to you. If you can't do that, it's difficult to see what alternate solution exists aside from heavy restrictions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you PMC, for clarifying your views. I'd like to apologise for asking for your further comment here, even after you said above that you were "done". In retrospect, opening a discussion thread at Talk:St Mary's Church, Hadleigh, to ask about the use of Tricker (2011), would have been somewhat more appropriate than pasting back the material sourced to the NHL website. This was a mistake, not a question of my misunderstanding the importance of copyright and how I can avoid copy-vio. I understood in 2022, and I think I do still understand now. My problem lies in trying to faithfully retain the meaning of the original source using different words. With regard to Widdicombe, does Spencer-Elliot in The Independent avoid copy-vio of Nick McGrath in The i Paper article here? I suppose journalists are held to different standards than are Wikipedia editors. I see that Fram has not edited for a few days, so I may have to wait a little longer for any comment here, if he wants to make one.

If everyone agrees to the voluntary restriction proposed by Trypto, it would be very churlish of me not to try it. I would be perfectly happy to suggest major textual additions on the appropriate Talk page first. I'd estimate that 95% of my edits do not involve adding major textual additions. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

No apology required; I've been staying out because I didn't want to appear as though I was badgering you. I think Spencer-Elliot does a pretty reasonable job of summarizing McGrath's transcript of the interview. She quotes a hell of a lot more than we would, but that's journalism. But notice how she summarizes some bits in her own words: I was just so panicked about constantly working and that if I ever stopped working, everything would go away. becomes Widdicombe explained his anxiety stemmed from a fear that if he ever stopped working then all his success as a comedian would vanish.

Let me give you another example from one of my own articles. the designer says he watched a lot of news and was inundated with the unfolding subprime mortgage crisis and its worldwide aftermath. Mostly he became bored of "this money situation" and decided to "do something crazy. You know that everyone’s sales are going to be down 20 percent anyway. You may as well make a statement." becomes McQueen felt sales would be poor regardless as a result of the declining economy, so he intended to attract attention by rejecting the safe approach and making a statement. See how I've condensed and restated the original? I've lost some of the detail about how he was watching the news, but that doesn't matter; the overall point is conveyed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that example, which is very helpful. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I left the copyvio I detected in the article for ease of discussion here, and to make it easier to replace if someone wanted to. I don't get why you need a word-by-word explanation of what consists copyvio in it, or your defense of (paraphrased) "I used the same quotes", as it was (as explained to you) the bits outside the quotes that are the issue. I don't agree with the proposals made above, copyvio in other namespaces than article space is still not acceptable, so moving things outside mainspace is not really a solution. And as you have an extremely hard time understanding even the basic issues about copyvio apparently, I don't think this is a worthwhile endeavour. Fram (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you intend to rev-del it? And your copy here, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't have revdel abilities. And posing copyvio's for the sake of discussing copyvio's has usually been allowed (as long as it doesn'y get excessive) as it is otherwise impossible to reasonably discuss this. Just imagine that I came here to say "your text there was copyvio, but it has been revdelled and I can't repeat it here, so you have to take my word for it". Wouldn't have been helpful. Feel free to request revdel of course. Fram (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I have been in that situation more than once. And it was very unhelpful. So I am not too bothered about what happens in the article history or here. It has now been changed anyway. Notwithstanding my "extremely hard time", it's my understanding that the copvio lies in the 40 words that were not enclosed by quotation marks, and which included the links to burnout, The i Paper and talking therapy. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

As the instigators of these latest "discussions" this kind of phrasing is just begging for this to go straight to ANI. Instigators? Scare quotes around "discussions"? You are completely in the wrong and people have been very patient with you. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Not to argue with someone who agrees with me on the substance, but if I'd wanted to make an issue of the phrasing, I would have done so. There's no need to do it on my behalf. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I was speaking on my own behalf that it was aggravating me. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate PMC for her understanding, thanks. At this point, it seems to me that Martin has agreed not to be churlish (something I've actually never known him to be!), and perhaps it's time for the rest of us to accept that for now, and see how this works out. As should be obvious, I made this proposal precisely to avoid having this escalate any further. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure I even need to say this much but I am washing my hands of it and removing subscriptions for these discussions. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

(Courtesy break)

Martin, I see on my watchlist that you making new edits to to the St. Mary's page today. I'm comparing your text with the cited source, and while you are paraphrasing to some extent, you are still paraphrasing too closely. Phrases like "is constructed of flint rubble with stone dressings and has leaded roofs and spire" and "rising from the stone tower to a total height of 41metres" are essentially copied verbatim, and "probably the earliest surviving" has some paraphrasing, and so is going in the right direction, but not going far enough. Damn. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Now reverted. I only added the spire details. Great to hear the spire was going in the right direction, after all these years. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hard to believe it's now disappeared entirely. Along with someone else's Flint rubble. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I get the joke about the direction the spire is pointing, but I'm just feeling sad about this. We discussed this, a lot, already. I removed the sentence about the flint, and I didn't know it had been added originally by someone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The NHLE source at says simply:

"MATERIALS: flint rubble with stone dressings, leaded roofs and spire."

and the article text said:

"The church is constructed of flint rubble with stone dressings and has leaded roofs and spire."

Not sure how to paraphrase less closely, unless to change the order of the features, e.g. "The church has leaded roofs and spire and is constructed of flint rubble with stone dressings," or perhaps "The church has a leaded broach spire and leaded roofs. It is constructed of flint rubble with stone dressings." Although to me this looks a bit like swapping the order of those ten words just for the sake of it, but also destroying the order of precedence that NHLE deems to be appropriate in the process. Or perhaps you think it's too close a paraphrase to one or more of the other four sources:

As for the spire, perhaps something like this would be better, e.g. "The broach spire, is slightly twisted (caused by warping of its timbers) and rises to a height of 135 feet (41 m). Dating from the early 14th century, it is probably the earliest surviving spire in the county." But happy to discuss anything better you can suggest. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss how to do these things. I also see that you've raised similar points at the article talk page. I'll try to answer here first, and then I'll look more carefully over there. I'm not sure what I think about the NHLE order of precedence. It comes across to me as just the way that they wrote it, rather than them making a statement about what is more or less important, but I could be convinced that I misunderstand something. At the time that I posted to you here, yesterday, the sentence in question was cited to reference 6 in your list, , not reference 1. That source says: "The church is constructed of flint rubble with stone dressings and has leaded roofs and spire." And that's verbatim the article text that I reverted.

Perhaps the order doesn't matter. But it seems it can't be kept or it would be deemed to be "too close paraphrasing"? Yes, unfortunate that I changed the source. Although it would still have been a 16-word breach of copyright if I hadn't? Would either of the two other suggestions above be acceptable? Perhaps using both sources as citations? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

This is largely answered just below. I think it's useful to think of this in terms of plagiarism and not just copyright violation, and the number of words is not what defines it. What does define it is intellectual honesty. Using two sources is fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, of course, intellectual honesty is what it's all about. Not about Anglican church officers or Historic England executives litigating for breach of copyright in those territories where WMF runs it's data centres. Do people ever litigate non-profit organisation for copyright violation? A question beyond our remit, I guess. I sometimes can't help feeling I am searching for words and phrases that the original author may have already discarded as less than optimal. If I have one source that says "stone dressings" and a second that says "ashlar surrounds", I'd obviously go with "stone surrounds" or "ashlar dressings". But tricky if there are third and fourth sources that use those other two combinations. And what if all four sources use "stone dressings" - choosing "ashlar surrounds" looks a bit like ignoring the sources and writing something second-rate, less accurate, more general? Perhaps it's easier if there's only a single source that can be re-written. Otherwise I have to check all other good sources to check they don't use the words I've chosen to avoid copyvio of the chosen source. This is just an overly-simplistic imaginary example, of course, but I hope it illustrates my basic difficulty. I think the idea of continuing to run suggestions past referees on this or the article Talk page is possible, despite Fram's misgivings. Alternatively, as DIYeditor has suggested, I could just avoid the problem but letting more knowledgeable and competent editors add content. Your help and suggestions here are still very much appreciated, Tryptofish, so thanks for your time and your continued patience. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You're very welcome, naturally. I think that question that is beyond our remit is one where we all would prefer never to find out the answer, if you know what I mean. My very strong hope is that, as you continue to get the feel of this, you will increasingly be able to write problem-free on your own, but I also think it is always a welcome move to ask for advice on talk. Indeed, getting to the point where you can, on your own, write content that is plagiarism-free, even while asking for advice on talk whenever appropriate, is pretty much a necessity, not simply an option.

Now as for your "basic difficulty", let me draw a (pedantic) distinction between "facts" and "expression". (One can substitute "word choice" for "expression", if that helps.) For facts (such as the century in which the church was first built), Wikipedia requires fidelity to reliable sources. But for how those facts are expressed, what words are chosen when we write about them, Wikipedia requires respect for intellectual property. So for Wikipedia, these are two different things, treated in different ways. Speaking broadly, it's not a problem for us to substitute a different word for the word used by sources if, essentially, the words would have the same meaning if one looked them each up in a dictionary. There are uncommon instances where a source uses a particular word or phrase, where that word or phrase has some sort of distinction that we would best quote it directly, put it in quotation marks, and attribute it directly. But that does not happen frequently. When, to pull an example out of the air, Winston Churchill spoke of an "Iron Curtain", we would want to quote him, and it would be pretty stupid for us to call it a "Steel Shade". Now if you think of "stone surrounds" versus "ashlar dressings" in that context, it should be obvious that this is something very different from Churchill's quote (no disrespect to the NHLE). I'm unfamiliar with architectural terminology as well as with British dialects, but if KJP1 assures me that "dressings" and "surrounds" are synonymous in this context, as are "stone" and "ashlar", I'll accept that on faith. So: as long as you continue to be careful about getting the "facts" right, you should give yourself permission to be more flexible about the "expression". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, semiology. It's the third part of his speech circuit that I'm increasingly having some issues with... Alas, I'm of the opinion that many so-called synonyms are not really the same thing at all. But I'm prepared to admit that context counts for a great deal. Yes, we would want to quote Winnie accurately, wouldn't we. I must remember to have a quick look at that article and check we've still got it right. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you that a single sentence in which the order of things is changed around doesn't suffice. I like what you did with making it into two sentences, and the fact that you improved on just saying "spire", by specifying the kind of spire. So one option would be that second suggestion of yours, with two sentences. Another option would be to switch the order of those two sentences (but still starting the (new) first sentence with "The church" and the second with "It"). A third possibility is to separate those two sentences, so that the one about the spire and roofs would introduce some more text about the spire and roofs, and the sentence about the flint and stone would introduce some more text about what the building is constructed of. By the time you do that, it's gotten quite far from being a copy of the source. And also, perhaps there are other ways of saying "flint rubble" and/or "stone dressings". Is there another word that means "dressings", for example? (I don't know, just asking.)

Yes, happy to go with my second suggestion, thanks. Or am I to think of a fourth option? Could go with KJP's "ashlar" (see below), although dressings seems more conventional, unless it's a two-word copyvio of course. But I'm also wondering if "ashlar dressings" is acceptable. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd prefer "ashlar surrounds" over "ashlar dressings". I'm less concerned with numbering the options, than with coming up with something that is not at all copied. The more you can do with breaking things up (separating the two sentences) and finding alternative word choices, the better. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Now for the spire, source 6 says: "The early 14th century broach spire, 21.6metres (71ft) rising from the stone tower to a total height of 41metres (135ft), is probably the earliest surviving spire in Suffolk." The Roy Tricker source (#3) says: "The warping of its timbers over the years has caused the spire to twist slightly...". The structure of your proposed revision is good, but I can suggest ways to improve the wording to make it less of a copy.

If you're going to say "broach spire" in the sentence above, then you can omit "broach" here, which makes the language more different. Instead of saying "warping of its timbers", you can change it to "warping of its timber framework", which is different language but consistent with what Tricker says in the rest of the paragraph. And there is no need to reuse the verb "rises to" when reporting the height. You could say it "has" a height, or it "reaches" a height. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

All your suggestions look fine. Broach in either place works for me. The simplest reference to tallness might be "The spire is 135 feet (41 m) high."? Many thanks for your help. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

”dressings” basically being the fancy stuff where they put in more effort than in the run-of-the-mill rubble, e.g. door/window surrounds. Would ashlar work, e.g. “ashlar surrounds”? You might need a further tweak to the wording to make it fit, which in itself may be helpful. KJP1 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

“ashlar surrounds” looks fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

p.s. yes, Jenkins calls the spire "bold". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

So I'd now suggest this:

"The church has a leaded spire and leaded roofs. It is built of flint rubble with ashlar surrounds. The 135-foot (41 m) high broach spire, described by Jenkins as "bold", is twisted, caused by warping of its timber framework. Dating from the early 14th century, it is probably the earliest surviving spire in the county."

Any more suggestions before I post over at the church article or Talk page? Just a start, of course, as more detail may be added for both construction and spire. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to tweak this to:

"The church is built of flint rubble with ashlar surrounds. It has a leaded spire and roofs. The 135-foot (41 m) high broach spire, described by Jenkins as "bold", is twisted, caused by warping of its timber framework. Dating from the early 14th century, it is probably the earliest surviving spire in the county."

What I did was switch the order of the first two sentences. That way, you start with saying what it is, basically, built of. And then you have an uninterrupted series of three sentences about the spire (and roofs). (I also removed the repetition of "leaded".) That becomes an overall flow of ideas that are ordered a bit differently than what the sources do, but still remains faithful to their meaning. In addition, there is the opportunity to eventually add some more information about the rubble and surrounds (directly after the first sentence), so as to separate that subtopic further from the subtopic of the spire, which could work very nicely as a way of providing information to readers, and also get even farther away from duplicating the source language. Personally, I'm quite pleased with this, so, good! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite pleased as well, thanks. Not sure what else could be said about the barney. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Only all the other external architecture, interior and fittings, and social significance to go... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: . --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

New re-write section here? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

For what I removed, I think you already know the answer. By the way, I reorganized the section, such that there is general information following the sentence about the rubble, and a new paragraph about the spire. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm surprised that PMC missed that text four years ago. Perhaps whoever originally added it had assumed that NHLE material was not protected by copyright, as there was no explicit copyright statement and the page gave a handy link to the Wikipedia article. Thanks for the reorganisation. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Initial suggestion:

"In the 15th century, apart from those in the tower, all the windows were renewed; additionally the arcades were rebuilt and the northeast vestry, south porch and clerestory were all added. The church was extensively restored during the 19th century and early 20th century."

Although I thought it might be better to stick with the original technical term refenestrated. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

p.s. is it better to continue with proposals here or on the church Talk page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

To answer your last question first, I don't think it matters that much either way. Things discussed here can then be brought up at the article talk.

Purely as a matter of sentence flow, I'd change the first part to: "In the 15th century all the windows were renewed, apart from those in the tower;". I just think that sounds better. Check that Fenestration (architecture) link, because it redirects to something else, so you might want to link it differently. And I think that changing it to "renewed" is good, so I have no worries about that. (Again, this isn't Churchill.) I'd also change "was extensively restored" to make it less like the original: you could change it to something based on "an extensive restoration". Other than that, I like the ways you made this a less close paraphrase, so good work! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok, it might be easier to concentrate effort at the church Talk page.

We now have:

"In the 15th century all the windows were renewed, apart from those in the tower; additionally the arcades were rebuilt and the northeast vestry, south porch and clerestory were all added. The church received an extensive restoration during the 19th century and early 20th century.

But Fenestration (architecture) redirects to "Etymology" in Window, where we have a mention of defenestration but not of refenestration. In the absence of a suitable redirect, again personally I'd prefer to leave it as "refenestrated" as it's the accepted technical term. Otherwise we'd need a new statement added at Window#Etymology? Any suggestions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Since everyone knows what a window is and what renewal is, and we don't need to define fenestration, I'd just leave it unlinked. And I think this version is good to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Will add. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Referees

The proposal that Martin not add any text to articles seems too tight and likely to generate boundary arguments about simple facts. I suggest that Martin have a list of team-mates/mentors/co-pilots/sub-editors that they can refer to when they feel the need to get something done. If he wants to work on a particular article of interest such as St Mary's Church, Hadleigh, he can "phone a friend" who agrees to keep an eye on what's done to the article and otherwise help out as appropriate. I'm happy to be considered for articles like that and have already started reviewing and updating it as it's the sort of respectable English topic that I like. But there are other topics that I wouldn't care for -- football, for example -- and so there should be a panel of potential referees.

Collaboration on an article might make the work more interesting and there would tend to be some skills-transfer as we tend to have different approaches and toolkits for such work. Working closely on a topic may give us more insight about how we handle issues like attribution, paraphrase and quotation. And the articles are likely to benefit from having multiple editors looking at them.

Andrew🐉(talk) 15:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me personally. Just pull some more people into the loop. Martin certainly seems like he is on top of things for the most part - knowledgable, able to draw on the right sources. I do feel like some acknowledgement on his part that he does "have a problem" as it were with paraphrasing would help here. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I wonder would you possibly be prepared to avoid using the third person singular case on his own Talk page? He’s beginning to think he’s not really here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Andrew, for the second time, I'm going to say that, as much as I appreciate you trying to lessen the blow for Martin, you aren't doing him any favors here. If there is a risk of trouble over boundaries, I think Martin should err on the side of not getting too close to boundaries. I'm always happy to offer advice if asked, and I've been trying to do a lot of advice-giving at the St Mary's page. Martin, any time you have a question, please feel free to ask me. (Sorry that I used some 3rd person there.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's consider a fresh example: the case of Roy Tricker discussed below. He seems to be a suitable subject for an article but this would have to be done carefully as his notability seems marginal. If Martin wanted to take the lead on this I would suggest that they create a draft article in a sandbox and then ask another editor or two to review it. If I were asked then I would give a review using the {{DYK checklist}}. This is a familiar process for me and might also help in preparing it for an actual DYK nomination.

When I do such a DYK review, I usually run WP:EARWIG and this usually reports something to check out. If there seems to be too close a paraphrase, I push back and the editor usually copy-edits the article to address this. If Martin had some trouble doing so then I'd get involved in the detail and this close co-operation might help us both understand the issue better.

The article would only be put into mainspace when it seemed ready. If the draft versions were too raw then the final version might be used to create a fresh and pristine page using cut/paste.

So, my point is that such work might be done in a safe way while still enabling Martin to get useful content created.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

You raise the issue of creating drafts, as opposed to making edits directly in mainspace. It's something that I hadn't thought of, specifically, because the problem has been direct edits in mainspace. To the best of my recollection, creation of new pages hasn't been an issue, so I don't know how much of an issue it will be, going forward. I've already said that I think it's fine to make suggestions about content on article talk pages, so long as other editors end up deciding whether or not to implement those edits in mainspace. I'd see drafts as being the same thing. I think what's most important in this regard is to not get too close to boundaries, and that's something I trust Martin about.

When I made this proposal, I obviously did it here on this talk page, and that was intentional. Everything we are discussing here is an informal and voluntary agreement, that does not have the enforcement power of a community sanction enacted after broader discussion at AN or ANI. That's a feature, not a bug. Some editors need the specter of enforcement hanging over them, in order to make restrictions effective. Martin isn't like that. There's this serious issue of plagiarism and copyvio, but I don't think anyone sensible believes that Martin acts in bad faith to try and mislead other editors (and I would push back very strongly against any accusation to the contrary). So it's important here that Martin understands what is expected, going forward, and I'm confident that he does. But if he makes some borderline mistakes, what we are discussing here is not going to be enforceable, in the sense of blocks etc. (There still could be admin sanctions for violating policies such as copyvio, of course. That doesn't change.) If there's a borderline mistake that doesn't cross the line into policy violation, the solution will be discussion, not escalation, and I made it that way by design. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

But I fear that the proposal gives or gave the impression of some kind of "immunity" when suggesting things on talk pages, draft, ... while in reality the exact same copyvio rules apply, and making further problematic edits there will not be seen as unproblematic but will just lead to a block / ban anyway. The issue is not the location, it's that after all these years and blocks and discussions, they still don't get it and try to wikilaywer about what is acceptable or not, and try to minimize the issues. See their reply above, "it's my understanding that the copvio lies in the 40 words that were not enclosed by quotation marks, and which included the links to burnout, The i Paper and talking therapy." No, it's the same words, in the same order, with the same quotes. The links are a red herring, the copyvio isn't changed by including or excluding links. And there is no magic muinimum or maximum number of words, a 10 word copy may be copyvio, while having 50 distinct, separate words matching in an edit of 1000 words summarizing a source of 50 pages is not a copyvio. Note that my quote or MartinEvans' edit in that comparison was the full edit they made, not some cherrypicked fragment. I don't get how after all these years it still needs to be explained what the issue is with that edit (made during a discussion about his copyvio issues, so not as if they forgot that these rules existed somehow), and even then it doesn't seem to really register. Fram (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The reply I gave above was 100% factual, not an attempt at "wikilayering". I was seeking clarification about the use of direct quotation. By my count, 39 words were not enclosed in quote marks. If one is trying to reflect a chronological sequence of events, it's hardly surprising that some words, or even sentences, will be in the same order. I'm a little surprised that you see no difference between 1000 words of copyvio and 10 words. I didn't know 10 was a lower limit. Is it? I've assumed it's more than a single word. No, I hadn't forgotten that these rules existed. If " burnout", The i Paper and talking therapy" are coyvio, what words would you use to replace them? The Spencer-Elliot article (itself largely composed of direct quotes from Widdicombe) has 560 words; so my 40 words equated to about 7%. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

As you don't seem to have really read or understood my post at all, I don't think it is useful to continue with this. I'll let others deal with it, and if I see more copyvio's I'll probably post it at ANI. Fram (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I have read your post. I believe I have understood it. If you have read my questions, it might be polite to reply. In your opening post above you mentioned "multiple copyvio blocks". As can been seen from my block log, in the 19 years I have been editing, I have received four. Of the two of those imposed by yourself, one was for posting YouTube links, which is not really the same thing as copying text, is it? Of the second one, it was said: "Unblocking; while there are some close paraphrasing/direct translation problems, a 1 month block with no prior discussion was not productive". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not claiming perfection here, and there's a good reason why I acknowledged from the start that my proposal would get laughed off the page if I said it at ANI. I'm not naive about this. I have already said that I agree with your analysis of the content, and I've already said that I've come to the conclusion that Martin must stay away from this because I don't expect that he's going to get better at this kind of content writing. The world is imperfect (that's putting it mildly), and this is the least bad of several bad solutions. Edits in mainspace affect our readers, but edits on talk pages don't. Policies still apply to talk pages, and I understand that, too. Each of us has to decide: is it more important to demand retribution, or to try to get back to everyone working on improving the encyclopedia in whatever way each person can best contribute? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

"Demand retribution"? No, what is important dealing with this editor like we do with every other otherwise productive editor who is also a serial copyright violator, to prevent further instances. If there was any indication that the issues would't reoccur, no discussion or sanctions would be needed. But both the long history here, and the discussions on this talk page, give me (and apparently some others) any confidence that this will be the case. We'll see... Fram (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not naive, and I'm not naive about how things work on Wikipedia. So long as you elect not to be retributive for retribution's sake, that's fine, and yes, we'll see. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I assume you meant to write “don’t give me” and not “give me”? Do you now believe I’ve read your posts? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Above you said: "And posing (did you mean "posting"?) copyvio's for the sake of discussing copyvio's has usually been allowed (as long as it doesn't get excessive) as it is otherwise impossible to reasonably discuss this." But then you've said: "But I fear that the proposal gives or gave the impression of some kind of "immunity" when suggesting things on talk pages, draft, ... while in reality the exact same copyvio rules apply, and making further problematic edits there will not be seen as unproblematic but will just lead to a block / ban anyway." How do you reconcile these two statements? Surely, existing rules allow for any editor to make requests for edits on article Talk pages. If a request is judged to be copy-vio, it may be deleted with an appropriate explanation and rev-del'ed if warranted? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Roy Tricker

Just as some background, here's a 2019 Suffolk Magazine article about prolific local author Roy Tricker. It seems Roy passed away in February this year? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The author looks to be notable so we should create an article for him. I'm not convinced that the death notice is the same person; the name of their wife is different, for example. And there are photos out there which look different. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh that’s a relief. Yes, he does seem notable. Looks like he's Roy W. as here, born in Epping in 1947. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think his notability is at best marginal. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Leave him to me. Obituaries will help as and when he does pass on. For example, I've just got Peter Thoday started. He didn't seem sufficiently notable when I created The Victorian Kitchen Garden back in 2008 – I remember considering the issue. But that show and its sequels made him more famous and so I've just got back to him after about 18 years. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hi Martinevans123. Please take a moment to review the policy on the use of multiple accounts. Specifically:

• It appears you are editing occasionally using another account. This appears in good-faith, but I did not see any links between that account and this account
• It seems you have been editing while logged out on multiple occasions, which appears to not be the occasional accidental logged out edit

Please avoid editing while logged out and I would recommend disclosing the connection to your other account to avoid impressions that this is bad-faith use of multiple accounts. Thanks and happy editing, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. Yes, I have edited while not logged in. Occasionally there may be more than one editor editing from this same IP address. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Martin, I think if I see another thread on your talk page about something related to policy, I'm going to have a heart attack. Please post the account information about any recent logged-out edits on your user page, indicating the temporary-account account numbers. Please see Category:Alternative Wikipedia account templates. It's important to disclose this information to avoid, um, anything bad. If you need to find those other account numbers, you can locate them by going through the edit histories of the pages where it happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

This new temporary account number system is all new to me and I'm not sure I understand it. This all seems to have happened in the six months where I wasn't editing. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Understandable, and if it was only during the period when you weren't editing logged-in, and isn't happening now that you have "returned", then you are in good shape in terms of not being in danger of trouble. You probably remember the articles you edited during that time, or at least most of them. Look at their article histories. There will be edits by "accounts" with labels like ~2026 followed by more numbers. I checked my own watchlist for some examples, and if you look here, you'll see examples at or near the top. (In this example the account name one could copy would have been ~2026-30675-74. Note that this doesn't reveal anything personal about the user, so your own personal privacy isn't going to be affected. Also note that, although that example is on my watchlist, those are edits that I haven't checked, so I don't know if they are any good. sigh) Does that help? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I really can’t remember. I’ll certainly make sure I’m logged on when making any future edits. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

That's OK, no need to be overly worried about it – I'm just being protective to a fault. I just made this edit: . It pretty much covers any logged out edits you made before your "return". Of course, you are free to revert it if you don't like it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Sonny

RIP Walter Theodore Rollins (September 7, 1930 – May 25, 2026): Waiting on a friend. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

And Rollins with Miles Davis, who turns 100 today: Miles Davis feat. Sonny Rollins - Dig (Official Audio) on YouTube Grimes2 13:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Superb, thanks! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC) (album is here)

I'm no music expert, but Rollins was one of the greats. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and a great survivor: "Rollins was the last survivor of the 57 jazz musicians depicted in the 1958 photograph A Great Day in Harlem." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2026 (UTC) .... another favourite: "On A Slow Boat To China", such a sweet tone, faultless

Wonderful albums and solos, and there are so many from that period, but another thing I always loved was his humorous approach, e.g. on "Sonnymoon For Two" (A Night at the "Village Vanguard") or "I'm an Old Cowhand" (Way Out West 🙂). Only last week, coincidentally, I had read an old interview with him, and marveled at the fact that he was still among us 🥲. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

An amazing age to achieve, even without being a musical genius. And some surprising appearances! Lisasimpson123 (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

👍 You, of course, are one my favourite sax players too! ---Sluzzelin talk 18:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

And btw, as another Tenor giant would be celebrating his 100th birthday later this year, always worth listening to (and as an altoist worth resisting): Tenor Madness! ---Sluzzelin talk

Yes, know what you mean: Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Revisiting, because I hadn't known this recording (and it's one of Sonny's most singable tunes): "St. Thomas" ... I'm a lover of bass solos: NHOP .. omg! ---Sluzzelin talk 22:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, a real classic standard, played by so many. NHØP a legend (especially with OP) Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Sonny Rollins

Rollins at Stockholm Jazz Fest 2009

On 27 May 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sonny Rollins, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:55, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, Stephen. Very glad that he has a blub and is pictured on main page. Wikipedia is a bit like a drug isn't it... Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC) (shame this Main page image no longer appears in the article!)

Hey Martin, I didn't know that he had gotten a blub. Was that what killed him? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe it was. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, bub. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The rescued footage of his 1974 gig at Ronnie Scott’s by BBC Four a real treat tonight, including the close ups of Rufus Harley’s argyle socks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Brian Matthew

Hi, Martinevans123. Just to let you know, in case you didn't see my edit summaries - the reason I removed the name of the son was in line with WP:BLPNAME. Non-notable family members should not usually be listed. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did see your edit summary, thanks. But that advice says (emphasis added): "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." So I think there is some leeway, especially as Christopher is not a minor - he was aged 60 when that source was published in 2014. Could be discussed further at Talk:Brian Matthew, but I have no strong view. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Yes, I agree there is leeway, but I don't think his name is relevant in the way the guidance says - am I missing something? Thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Monty Don

Hi, Rather than ping-pong edits, I am happy for either the source to be removed (the claim was unsourced prior to me adding edits) or for the sentence to be removed entirely as it doesn’t add much (if anything) to the overall article BillyDee (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Billy. No worries, whatevs... I am a keen Don watcher. Here are all 14 episodes from this year's RHS Chelsea Flower Show^{"An event supported by Range Rover"} We can't make a complete list, of course, as that would beWP:OR. But here he is in his Bus Conductor's Best (amongst other horti-cool outfits)!! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi again Billy. Looks like there has been some controversy over the wearing of a Barbour jacket on GW! See e.g.here, here and here. Good job it wasn't at Chelsea! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Martin - I did indeed see that, it is what caused me to come over and edit the article in the first place! Thanks for sharing, though BillyDee (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to This Is Tomorrow (song). When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me and thinks for fixing. Sorry to have been so argumentative. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't see anything argumentative? Just a typo! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for the pun. And the gratuitous snake. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC) (... you need room 12A next door...)

I want to complain! You want to complain, look at these socks, I've only had 'em three weeks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Oi! Threesie.... what's occurin'?? You're such a pussy! All far too risky these days, old boy. Nessa Jenkins 123 (The Slots, Barry Island) 12:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

June music

story · music · places

Martin, you said "odd" and "ridiculous", but I found the word for it is kafkaesque. Arbitration is explained well in the intro of The Trial: "arrested and prosecuted by an inaccessible authority, with the nature of the crime of which he is accused revealed neither to him nor to the reader". Did you know that the first infobox arbcase was requested by a friend of mine, because some friends and I had trouble getting the new infobox for operas introduced? What arbitration made of it was almost banning my friend Andy, the majority vote for it citing an edit in which he had moved an infobox from the bottom to the normal position at the top of the article (Peter Planyavsky). How can you argue with that? It seems so unreal. Not only that the arb voting didn't examine that edit (not even after I questioned it), but none of the colleagues either, obviously. Andy wasn't banned because one of those who had voted earlier changed his mind. Even before the close of the case, Brian Boulton, one of the best editors ever, gave his opera FA an infobox (L'Arianna). We didn't "win" the case, but the infoboxes for operas, and that's what counts for me. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:infobox opera#Example 4, for your amusement ;) - the inclusion count is 1774 today (well, subtract a few for being included on talk pages), all works by a certain Wagner mentioned in my story today. Remember the riot, in 2013, his bicentenary, when I suggested an infobox for him, to be present not in the article but only on its talk page? Things changed, and some noticed and others didn't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

If you look at the church named like you, you see three recent pics, the top of a concert that Franz Josef Hamm arranged for his 90th birthday and invited everybody, a new one of our conductor, and at the bottom us taking standing ovations (but that conductor still at the keyboard). The other conductor and the organist have an article. The music, Forrest's Jubilate Deo, is quite breathtaking, and the organist (my choral conductor for decades) said we were better than what he had heard on the internet. No youtube upcoming, though, copyright, you know ... Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem Kafkaesque. Many thanks for the links. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! - Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39, is my story today: listen! - I returned from a festivity with a great vocal ensemble (in concert and service) and a new song by the birthday child, premiered by the congregation, - see music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Ruddy Nora.... it's already Flaming June!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

yes - I don't think I should appear for Ravel, but am so tempted to point at the featured articles that received an infobox since the last Ravel discussion (2021): all the new ones (Stravinsky and such), and some oldies, most of those by RfC or discussion (Tchaikovsky, Nielsen, Wagner, Mendelssohn, Britten). How many more RfCs - I asked that in 2018, for Sibelius, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Trying to forget, lol. But a wise decision. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I tried to forget that Sibelius disc, and also Mahler. It would be easier to forget if the resistance against a feature that the community has requested again and again would end. Instead, our arbitrators banned the person who did most to break the resistance. Kafkaesque. There will be others, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It's quite a dramatic dance, isn't it... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

no, it's boring ;) - La Valse is more dramatic --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

You are right. But perhaps the whole topic should be put on ice. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

can you convert the one who thinks a link to a neutral list of works is something dishonest? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll probably suppress that action. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

not good for your health --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I know. A nice try, but no cigar. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

it was on 11 June, I sang Jesu, meine Freude, and the next day my grandfather was buried - "Ich steh hier und singe", remembered here - remember ...billy? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to hear of your loss back then. Three years have passed very quickly. Yes, I remember Billy very well. Another real troublemaker, of course. I expect he's still lurking around somewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say the loss happened in 2023 ;) - I said I remembered it in 2013, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thirteen years have passed? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

remembered in 2013 would tell me it was earlier but my logic may be as flawed as my English - what I meant to confirm is that I stand and sing, and Bach's Trotz is with me --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

can you translate that into English to the one who accused the community of dishonesty which I find too hard to swallow to not reply? or did I misunderstand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Not sure I fully understand! I'm with Duncan on this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Yesterday was the former German Unity Day, installed when unity was just a dream. I had a story to match, and today, it's another one, with music by Bach and Mendelssohn to match, - a DYK hook 15 years ago, which seems like from a different world. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Today is the centenary of King Roger, an opera by Karol Szymanowski who is pictured on the main page, - my story with the trailer of the performance I saw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Phyllis Kinney for you - us? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

No longer active on Wikipedia

You do seem to be active at the moment; perhaps you should amend your user page. ;) Jontel (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Aww, bless you, Jontel. Obviously too busy to amend it... Is it a wholly blockable offence? Perhaps I'll just get topic-banned from by own page again. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Re: , I think you are incredible, no matter what anyone else says! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

"Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see.".... and you know what they say in Manchester! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I tried to create a witty reply based on picking out some name from here, but honestly, the names get so ridiculous that I gave up. (Although Rick Dicker has a certain ring to it...) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry, am just blazin', dude. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

RIP Anthony Head

RIP Anthony Stewart Head (20 February 1954 – c. 4 June 2026). Ah yes, instant coffee was so glamorous in the 1980s, wasn't it! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC) (yes, sorry, it is Phillip Schofield narrating that...)

He is supposed to be famous for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but to me he is always one half of the Gold Blend couple.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Most of the coffee I drank in the 1980s would have slain a few buffy vampires... Martinevans123 (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Murder of Henry Nowak

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Gimme a chance, dude. Chill thy automatic beans, Qwertyjiffybot. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Air India Flight 171

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Air India Flight 171, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, Qwertybot. There's just no stopping you, is there! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit Warring warning

{{subst:uw-3rr}} Amitrao17 (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

That's very cryptic. My previous revert at Air India Flight 171 was at 13.19 yesterday? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

[] This is the revert.

Yes, at 12.08 today. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You appear to be engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly revert each other's changes. Please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, use the talk page to discuss how the page can represent consensus among the editors involved. Here is some advice on how to do this. If discussions get stuck, you can request a third opinion, ask for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution.

Edit warring can result in being blocked from editing, especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts within 24 hours on one page. Undoing any other editor's work, in whole or in part, involving the same or different material, is a revert. You can still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not violate the three-revert rule should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Amitrao17 (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you feel the need to report me at WP:AN3? Where are my "three reverts within 24 hours on one page"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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

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

Amitrao17 (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

WTF. We've already had a great deal of discussion at the relevant Talk page. No one else has been edit warring. Not sure that opening a new venue, just to air the same arguments, will achieve much. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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

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

Macxcxz (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

"Clunk-click every trip" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for David Hockney

"'Eh oop lad, tha' can forget tha' California swimming pools and beefcake mags!"

On 13 June 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article David Hockney, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew. To me he always looked older than 30... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

It's interesting to find that Xtools calculates that you are the #2 author of the Hockney article behind only Dhfvickyp who is not a regular editor. Well done! Andrew🐉(talk) 16:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew! You'd be surprised how many misplaced commas I found there... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

RIP Dave Greenslade

RIP David John Greenslade (18 January 1943 – June 2026). Great musician. Really nice guy. I loved that band. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like Yes (band). Grimes2 20:12, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, a bit, I guess, but without any lead guitar of course. (I saw them at the Cardiff Capitol, I'll have you know!) Greenslade was brilliant in Colosseum of course: e.g. "Lost Angeles" ("Keith without the knives") Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Roger Cook (journalist)

On 18 June 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Roger Cook (journalist), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, Bagumba. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Not Andy Burnham

Burnham had no policy on Wigan kebabs: Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Major Oak

On 19 June 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Major Oak, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, Black Kite. (...word of advice - don't go there for a good pizza...) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Amusing coincidence that it co-appears with Oliver Tree. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I felt too embarrassed to mention it. And that’s saying something! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism

It was not vandalism it’s portwood stupid ~2026-36158-47 (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You think that Henry Nowak was murdered in Portwood, Stockport and not Portswood, Southampton? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe they think it's Portwood Stupid, Stockport. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, that might explain it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC) (although nowhere near Dumb Arse, New Jersey or Elbow Falls, Alberta)

I agree, and so does Chekhov. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Now we know why the dinosaur crossed the interstate... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I was reading that link, and then went to lightbulb joke, which made me think: "How many people did Edison screw?" (Not really funny, but somehow it amuses me...) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Shocking!! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request to review talk page discussion closure. The discussion is about the topic Topic. — —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, Myceteae. Don't worry, I know what the topic is, and it's a bit nutty, isn't it. Phew, and I thought it was all so simple as is not was. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

(And here's one for you,Tryptosaurus Rex: It's the Funky Chicken (Not)!! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)) (classic keyboard break!)

Those guys look like they're having way too much fun for such a lightweight song. But if you take it for a walk, how do you get it to wear a leash? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Just keep it away from that nasty Protoceratops at number 62... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You mean Keir Starmer (sorry!)? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

How very dare you!! We were quite happy with our dull, has-been barrister, thankyou, especially compared to that shiny orange imbecile!! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, all that algae in the reflecting pool is getting embarrassing. But you folks have an imbecile of your own (albeit not orange), so no need to pick a fight. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I had conveniently fogotten about "The Beast of Clacton", soz. Come on Sir Andy! Hoorah!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC) p.s. did you actually get a ticket??

I had to look up what "soz" is. I guess nobody speaks English anymore... --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Soz, our kid. Up here, in Burneyland, we're all totes buzzin', mate. And totes madferit, mate!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC) (sorry, was distracted just watching them Argentines v them Austringians, but it all got a bit messy)

Well, bless your heart. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If only it were truly about something as trivial–or perhaps as philosophically complex—as Topic. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Bedford collision

Re: this edit, you need to supply a full reference. Mjroots (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, Mjroots. I was distracted by an edit conflict - it's in that existing BBC report. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

A tipple of Tico

... Brilliant, Brazilian music. Alas, no such orchestral version available on Spotify, so cannot add to playlist? Annoying. Mac Edmunds (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

And I thought I was guilty of random posts on other editor's Talk pages!! How very cruel... they haven't even kicked off yet.... Come on you Jocks!!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Given my total ignorance to football, in fact most sport, I can assure there was no euphemism in my suggestion whatsoever! Mac Edmunds (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Haha. yes I can see where you're coming from! Me, I'm more old-school, jumpers-for-goalposts, hmmm, you know, isn't it... Oh! Those Bazillians! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC) p.s. thanks for the wonderful link!

Nice music, and the strangest style of conducting I've ever seen. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Ha, yes it is rather odd. Mac Edmunds (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Sturgeon and Murrell

Sturgeon and Murrell sounds like a great lawyer's practice?!

Oh and "...just one more thing..." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Rorschach test

Hi,

The current stable version of the Rorschach test article, in place since August 2025, is now being discussed on the Talk page. Questions have been raised about whether the overhaul had sufficient consensus and whether it was motivated by censorship. Since you participated in the earlier discussion, I thought you might be able to add useful context to the current Talk page discussion.

Thanks. Tam01 (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, Tam01. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

July music

story · music · places

I took the above kafkaesque proceedings as a good reason to make the summary my story today. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, Gerda. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

August music

story · music · places

You would have loved yesterday's concert. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Voces8? They are amazing. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I had three bios in the news section when the day began, and Jill Gomez is my favourite, - my story of course! - Places are particularly bright today: for the Voces8 concert - one of three I was blessed with this summer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Quite a mixture. Especially the ending? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

"to the moon" was the encore - no room to mark it as such ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

A very varied programme! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Ileana Cotrubaș is on the main page, also my story --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

When the day began, she was still there, also Anny Schlemm, and DYK also had a soprano, Felicity Lott, - remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Alan Titchmarsh

Martin, I'm wondering if the Alan Titchmarsh page might need locking, as anonymous IP accounts keep removing a lot of sourced content from this article on a regular basis. Rocksymusic (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi RockSy, Well maybe. Perhaps a few timely manual reverts will get the message across. With the old "raw IP" style it was sometimes easier to see if vandals were using the same IP and where they might be located. Now everyone's given a temporary account, so that's not visible. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I took a look, and I'll bet that the temp account from June 25 and the one from today are the same person, because the editing style is the same and the old temp account simply expired. I agree with Martin that it should be sufficient for now to just revert, but if it becomes more frequent than a month apart, then someone could request semi-protection at WP:RFPP, which might be justified given that this is a WP:BLP. (By the way, nice username!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

hmm, maybe I will officially disappear and request a new account name... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Yeah, a bold move, sort of a regeneration, like... you could try Vagina Plane. - Derek R Bullamore (talk)

(virginia talk page creeper) Yes I could. Or maybe even The Shpinx and Mona Lisa? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Market Drayton – Lisa Cartlidge

Hi Martin. I noticed you removed the Lisa Cartlidge entry from the Notable residents section with the edit summary “no article yet”. Could you clarify which Wikipedia policy requires a person listed there to already have a standalone article? The entry had citations supporting her professional career, so I’d just like to understand what would be needed for the listing to be acceptable. Thanks.

~2026-45739-31 (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi 2026-45739-31. The basic policy is WP:BIO. That opens with "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.". Adding people as "notable" to a geographical location, like a town or city, sort of assumes that notability has been established. Having a standalone article is usually a good test. But I see that this guideline doesn't actually mention having to have a standalone article already. So as long as the person is notable, it seems they could be added. I really don't know enough about TV make-up to be able to judge if Cartlidge is notable or not. The best place to ask is probably at Talk:Market Drayton. Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

p.s. you might also want to take a look at Category:English make-up artists. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Frank Beard (drummer)

On 23 August 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Frank Beard (drummer), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 16:37, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, Schwede66. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Martin, as soon as I saw it on the Main Page, I knew it would be you who got it listed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Not just me, I'm sure! And I wasn't even sure it would have the legs to make it. It was "just another night with nothin' to do...", and I had a few dodgy moments.... but hey, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Kudos to you anyway, sharp dressed man. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

... where he is next to Harry van der Kamp, my story today. If you have little time, just listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Monmouthshire

As Article? Care to explain more instead of more disruptive edits? ~2026-44972-34 (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello 2026-44972-34. I'm guessing that you are referring to my recent edit here? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergyng ~2026-44972-34 (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

The article is called just Ergyng not Kingdom of Ergyng. Sorry if my edit summary was a little too concise. What I meant was: "changing to the name as it appears in the title of that article". Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

your 'unsourced' statement is rather unfounded, everything I edited in regards to Ergyng is already confirmed (especially it's location). ~2026-44972-34 (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure the existence of Ergyng is perfectly well sourced in its own article (and possibly elsewhere also), although I must admit I haven't checked. What I meant by the edit summary "unsourced" is that there are no sources for it in the Monmouthshire article. I'm not sure that something should be mentioned in the lede section (which is meant to summarise the entire article) when it is not mentioned or discussed anywhere in the main text body - see MOS:LEAD. If you feel really strongly about this, it's probably best if you open a discussion thread at Talk:Monmouthshire. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

While i understand what your saying, it still doesnt make any sense really, the entire paragraph is unsourced yet isn't corrected?, because it's established history just like Gwent (which was larger than it is now and included Ergyng and Ewyas the other Welsh Kingdom's of the Sub-Roman era, and that's why I've put Ergyng in the Sub-roman history section which is about the area before it's Anglicised to Monmouthshire, prefect and accurate place to mention it, so i just don't see the problem of it being there or trying to claim it's 'unsourced'? ~2026-44972-34 (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Like I just don't see how you can claim it's unsourced when it's in the Sub-Roman era of the page... If Gwent is allowed so should the rest of it be? ~2026-44972-34 (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

"Eastern Gwent (later Monmouthshire) was part of the ancient Welsh kingdom of Ergyng during the early medieval period, the town of Monmouth (Abermynwy) sat at the southern edge of it's territory." ~2026-44972-34 (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

As per WP:LEADCITE, there's no need for sources in the lead (with some minor exceptions). Everything should be sourced in the text. You added it to the lead section here, not the "Sub-Roman period" section? I think mention of Gwent is justified, as it was part of what became Monmouthshire, whereas it's not explained that "Eastern Gwent (later Monmouthshire) was part of the ancient Welsh kingdom of Ergyng." And if that was only in the early medieval period (= "Sub-Roman period"?) that's where is should be mentioned (with sources). Would you like to start a new thread to carry on discussion over at Talk:Monmouthshire, as I suggested, or would you like me to copy this discussion over there? Other interested editors may have a view. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Another consideration is that the article is already at WP:Good article status and so has been fully reviewed. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I see that you may be a new editor. If you are keen about improving articles like this one, I'd advise you to create an account. It takes only a few seconds and shows you are a serious contributor. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

1936 Summer Olympics

I wanted to put it. You banned it. The refusal to invite Lithuania was a direct reaction to the Neumann–Sass Trial (1934–1935) in Kaunas, where Lithuanian authorities prosecuted local Nazi leaders Ernst Neumann and Theodor Sass for plotting an armed coup to detach the Klaipėda region. Enraged by the convictions of these German-backed operatives, Adolf Hitler launched economic sanctions and directed the Berlin Olympic Committee to revoke the recognition of the Lithuanian National Olympic Committee, banning the nation from the 1936 Games. The source is in microfilms. How to show a link? Thanks. Archival Citation ReferenceFor historical records concerning the Neumann–Sass Trial (Der Neumann-Sass-Kriegsgerichtsprozess in Kaunas) and diplomatic retaliation against Lithuania during 1934–1936, researchers reference the specific holdings in Abteilung IV (Department IV – Eastern Europe & Baltics) within the Political Archive: Archival Holdings: Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes (PA AA)Key File Series: Pol. 3 D. / Class R 84873 (Politische Beziehungen Litauens zu Deutschland / Political Relations between Lithuania and Germany). Kolumbus18 (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Kolumbus18. Many thanks for your note. Your recent addition at 1936 Summer Olympics here, as I said in my edit summary, looked entirely feasible and was well-written. I certainly didn't "ban it". I reverted it as it was unsourced. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Kolumbus18 (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

When you say "The source is in microfilms", is that available online somewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Microfilms are here:

Die damalige deutsche Gesandtschaft in Kaunas hat eine seitengleiche Übersetzung der

(litauischen) Anklageschrift angefertigt, die im Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes eingesehen

werden kann: In IV Rd: Pol. 3 D, R 84873 (508 Seiten).

If you want to read about sanctions of Germany against Lithuania in 1936, it is here:

https://www.nytimes.com/1936/08/06/archives/lithuania-makes-accord-with-reich-signs-a-trade-and-political-pact.html Kolumbus18 (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

That archive extract from NYT looks very interesting, but seems to describe an agreement between Germany and Lithuania three years earlier before the Games? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

We are talking about Olympic Games in 1936. Why did you say "3 years earlier"? Kolumbus18 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, have corrected. I didn't see any mention of the Trial of Neumann and Sass. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

If you can vouch for the microfilm source, the German description (with an English translation) might be sufficient. But it's a bit unclear where the archive is physically held. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I can't find exact location of microfilm. It is in https://archiv.diplo.de/. I want to show you that even Google give you a hint about it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Olympische+Sommerspiele+1936%22+%22litauen%22&sca_esv=a2208681365e9ee4&sxsrf=APpeQnt4z6kyejiEkf4A4cC2xeup6GFPbw%3A1788206595714&ei=A96Vav-TK-i3wPAP8u_tkQc&biw=1536&bih=872&ved=0ahUKEwi_obDX1MuWAxXoGxAIHfJ3O3IQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22Olympische+Sommerspiele+1936%22+%22litauen%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiKCJPbHltcGlzY2hlIFNvbW1lcnNwaWVsZSAxOTM2IiAibGl0YXVlbiIyBRAAGO8FMgUQABjvBTIIEAAYgAQYogQyBRAAGO8FSPciULYHWOcgcAF4AZABAJgBZqABsAGqAQMxLjG4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgOgArwBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICBRAhGJ8FmAMAiAYBkAYEkgcDMi4xoAfaA7IHAzEuMbgHuAHCBwMwLjPIBwWACAE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

---

Bei den Olympischen Sommerspielen 1936 in Berlin hat Litauen nicht teilgenommen.Das Land wurde vom Gastgeberland, dem nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Reich, nicht eingeladen.Die Gründe für den AusschlussHintergrund des Ausschlusses waren schwere politische und territoriale Spannungen zwischen beiden Staaten:Konflikt um das Memelland: Deutschland erhob territoriale Ansprüche auf das unter litauischer Souveränität stehende Memelgebiet (Klaipėda-Region).Der Neumann-Sass-Prozess (Kauno procesas): Litauen hatte kurz zuvor (1934–1935) in Kaunas einen weithin beachteten Prozess gegen lokale Nationalsozialisten (angeführt von Ernst Neumann und Theodor von Sass) wegen eines geplanten pro-deutschen Putschversuchs geführt.Politische Reaktion: Als direkte Reaktion auf diese Verurteilungen und die anti-nationalsozialistische Haltung Litauens verweigerte das NS-Regime dem Nachbarland die Einladung zu den Spielen.

---

Lithuania did not participate in the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin. The country was not invited by the host country, Nazi Germany. The reasons for the exclusion: The background to the exclusion was severe political and territorial tensions between the two states: Conflict over the Memel Territory: Germany laid territorial claims to the Memel Territory (Klaipėda region), which was under Lithuanian sovereignty. The Neumann-Sass Trial (Kauno procesas): Lithuania had recently (1934–1935) conducted a widely publicized trial in Kaunas against local Nazis (led by Ernst Neumann and Theodor von Sass) for a planned pro-German coup attempt. Political reaction: As a direct reaction to these convictions and Lithuania's anti-Nazi stance, the Nazi regime refused to invite its neighbor to the Games. Kolumbus18 (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

So it's the Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amts ("Political Archive of the Federal Foreign Office"). It looks like it's located at Kurstraße 36, 10117 Berlin. I am assuming that the microfilms are not available to search online. I can also see the LEMO timeline. But that seems to concern something that happened three years later, in 1939? Perhaps there is an English language source for your assertion somewhere, but I really don't know where to look. With your permission, it might be best to copy this discussion over to Talk:1936 Summer Olympics. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

yes. sure. Kolumbus18 (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

The year 1936 is not related at all. We talk only about 1936. Kolumbus18 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

The year 1939 is not related at all. We talk only about 1936. Kolumbus18 (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

[now copied over to Talk:1936 Summer Olympics#Lithuania] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

September music

story · music · places

Today's story has a sad end: Antonino Fogliani, mostly Rossini - complete Barber in the article, officially published by La Fenice, imagine, with almost 2 overtures ... - the trailer in my is story is funnier, though. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Geles Cabrera, a Mexican sculptor --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

musician François Rossé for fire engines and saxophones - don't miss music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

BLAR notice

Hi there. While reviewing new pages, I noticed that a page you created, Fran Tate, does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as a standalone article. As an alternative to deletion, I've redirected it to Little Feat. If you disagree, feel free to revert my redirect and we can proceed to a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. (If you reply to me here, please ping me as I am not watching this page.) Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2026 (UTC)