User talk:Martin of Sheffield/Archive 9

"Commit suicide"
Hey. I'm still thinking about what you said on the MoS discussion a while ago about "commit" in "commit suicide" actually emerging from the sense of "irrevocably deciding to do something; 'to commit to a course of action'." I've searched (not extensively) but haven't found anything corroborating this. Do you have a source? I'm purely curious. Popcornduff (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) To give in charge, to entrust
 * 2) To entrust a person to someone's care
 * 3) To commend by prayer or imprecation
 * 4) To trust oneself to the elements, sea etc
 * 5) To commit administration
 * 6) To commit to writing
 * 7) To put into some safe place for keeping (also to commit to the earth, flames, grave etc)
 * 8) To take into custody
 * 9) To refer (a bill etc) to a committee
 * 10) To commission
 * 11) To charge with a duty or office
 * 12) To perpetrate or perform in a bad sense
 * 13) To do:
 * 14) something wrong, an offence
 * 15) a folly
 * 16) adultery or fornication
 * 17) humorous use such as "committing puns"
 * 18) to commit marriage (Obs)
 * 19) To put together, join
 * 20) To connect
 * 21) To commit battle
 * 22) To engage as opponents
 * 23) In a contest
 * 24) in a state of hostility
 * 25) in hostile relations
 * 26) To expose to
 * 27) risk, danger or suspicion
 * 28) To pledge to a particular course by an act
 * 29) To compromise oneself
 * 30) To pledge oneself to a course
 * 31) To enter into a commitment


 * Those are the abbreviated definitions, the full entries both give more detail and also historical quotations. I have paraphrased slightly, and broken definitions where there was no higher level text, but honestly think this is a fair representation of the outline.  The original uses I-IV for the outer list and a-e for the inner list.  I'll admit that my "off the cuff" definition was too brief (see 1.1.3-5, 4.2 and 4.4) but on the other hand the idea that commit = crime is also way too simplistic (really only 3.1.1 and 3.1.3).  I hope that that helps your curiosity!


 * Thanks for the reply. But - forgive me - unless I'm missing something, it doesn't really answer my question. Yes, I understand the different meanings of the word "commit", but what is the evidence that "commit suicide" was originally used in the sense of "committing to an action" and not in the sense of doing a bad act? Popcornduff (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read through the entry for the verb a couple of times this moring and cannot see a reference to suicide anywhere in it. I did check the substantive (OED speak for noun) "suicide" but it only mentions the phrase "to commit suicide" with no further details.  Probably this will end up as dependant upon an individual's linguistic experience.  I would always see "to perpetrate or perform in a bad sense" as only one sense amongst many, I more frequently come across the word in the sense of 1.1.5 or 4.4.4, for example "following main ignition the rocket was committed to launch", or "after V2 an aircraft is committed to take off, there is insufficient runway left to stop".  Possibly psychiatrists are more used to bad acts than doing things, but that might be another lengthy discussion! ;-)  Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Sorry to say I remain unconvinced... the sense of committing to an action is always written "commit to", but no one writes "commit to suicide"; meanwhile to commit a bad thing is always written without a preposition. It still sounds, to me, plausible that "commit suicide" emerges from a time when it was a crime, as (for example) the Guardian says. Popcornduff (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Help talk:Score
In of Help talk:Score, you inserted wikitext that includes  on two lines, one of which is part of a larger block that is also wrapped by. The parts on one line are OK, but causes a misnested tags lint error when it wraps multiple blocks, i.e. more than one line, like that. It could be fixed by wrapping each line/paragraph/block individually with, which would preserve the display appearance, but I won't do that myself, since I'm not sure if the current appearance is what you intended. If the current appearance is what you intended, I encourage you to make this change yourself. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was quoting HTML code which included the and sought to make the output readable rather than one very long line.  It's a talk page, not main article space so if you have problems with it feel free to amend it, or alternatively simply send it off to the archives. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I put on each line individually, which preserved the appearance and fixed the lint error. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

are are
Hi, would you mind looking again at this edit of yours? If "are are" is some technical term in engineering it could probably do with a link to an explanation.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for pinging me.  "Are are" is not a weird technical term (sounds more like pirates actually), I was attempting to remove 's plugging of BDS Machines' KEYLESS chuck.  If Rohan wants to add the section looking at keyless chucks in general that would be fine, but the deleted section reads like advertising copy for BDS Machines.  I've deleted it and in the edit summary added "(previous edit only removed a correction)" so that it is clear your edit was not the problematic one.  Regards, and thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks, that makes sense.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

"Principal influence"
I think you have hit on the right phrase in calling Christianity a "leading influence" on Europe: that's the word I was looking for. Still, I do think it is logically synonymous with "principal influence". Principal means major or chief, i.e. leading, not totally determining: a prince is not a dictator or emperor. Magyar25 (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My only problem was with "a principal". Principal implies to me the single most important reason, so should only be used in the context of the definite article and that claim would require citation. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Change coming to how certain templates will appear on the mobile web
Hello,

I wanted to share a follow-up to an RfC you participated in from late 2016/early 2017. It was regarding making certain warning templates visible on mobile. The Readers web team has been working to improve how these templates appear on the mobile website. I shared an announcement with communities today that covers what is happening. If you have any interest, I encourage your support in giving feedback on the project page or helping update templates of this nature with some of our recommendations.

Thank you, CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

List of metro systems
Thanks for reverting my edit on List of metro systems; after your kind correction, I got where my involuntary mistake came from: I used another translating tool which misled me by wrongly showing "131 million 460 thousand passengers" (hence I rounded it at 131.5 million) instead of the correct "131 million during the year and 460,000 daily". Best regards, Yak79 2.0 (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Medway
Thanks for catching that I didn't revert the edits by both users and for fixing that for me. Those edits were all by the same user, who has been adding BLP violations and unreferenced nonsense (like the content you just reverted). I just wanted to leave you a message and let you know that I appreciated your revert. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. The edits were wrong in multiple ways, and when I looked at the blocked IP user it was apparently a sock for another blocked IP – Grrr!  Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

You are now a rollbacker!
Hi Martin of Sheffield! I've been running into you in recent changes patrolling and I happened to notice that you don't have the rollback user rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling, and you consistently view and undo vandalism and disruption to articles. I believe that rollback would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tool. Instead of having you formally request rollback at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to quickly revert the edits of other users in cases of blatant vandalism.

Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:


 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle. It just adds a "[Rollback]" button next to a page's latest edits - that's all.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war. If abused or used for this purpose, rollback rights will be revoked.
 * Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask.

Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see this tutorial page. I'm sure you'll do fine with rollback - it's a pretty straight-forward user right and it doesn't drastically change the interface you're used to, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into any troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

[[SB Havelock of London]]
Nice idea but I only have one anecdote- and no further references. Are you planning the article? Best wishes from this end of Medway-Happy New Year- ClemRutter (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was hunting for a way to keep the standard formatting and turn off the link when the family called. I'll probably revert the red link but I need to do a bit more digging first.  Changing topic; glad to see the back of 2018, and I hope 2019 will be better, though I doubt it.  All the best to you and yours, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Can you do an  #ifexist||]  or what ever the syntax is. As to 2019 I working on the theory that it will be dire- then it can't get worse, butI feel that is being too optimistic.[[User:ClemRutter|ClemRutter (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've also set up the test cases and sandbox.  Documentation updated.  Let me know what you think. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Kingswood School

 * Dear Martin, thank you very much for your comments which has been noted. I will propose changes next time before I amend anything. I do work for Kingswood School and would like this page to be as accurate as can be. Thank you. Sderrick82 (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. Although I've no reason to doubt the accuracy of your edits, it is a requirement that anything in Wiki is verifiable.  There is an ongoing (understandable) belief that people and companies have "their" Wiki page, when of course the page is actually Wiki's.  A moment's thought will show that KS no more "owns" the page than it would an entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, hence the requirement for COI declarations etc.  If you can set up your home page to show that you have a COI and are handling it correctly it would be most appreciated.  Furthermore, if you would like my assistance in doing so then please get back to me, I'd be delighted to help.  One other small point, it is a condition of use of a Wikipedia username that it is used by one person only.  Your name looks as if you are doing exactly the right thing, but some companies and institutions do start to share accounts which is not permitted.


 * Moving more positively, I've expressed concern in the past over the use of the advertising logo in place of the crest. In my opinion (and here I speak only for myself) it doesn't work on screen.  If you disagree, then this is exactly what the talk page is for and a discussion there is the appropriate way to go.  Other editors can then review any discussion and come to an informed judgement in the best interests of the encyclopedia.


 * Once again, thanks for getting back to me over this. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)