User talk:Martinlc

MfD nomination of Talk:Farah Damji
Talk:Farah Damji, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Farah Damji and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Farah Damji during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. This page is beginning to read like a vanity piece. The subject of the piece has been in the press again recently about a number of new criminal convictions but these are not mentioned in the article. Since the subject is really only notable for her criminal convictions, these need to be listed in full in the article. The latest convictions are verifiable and mentioned in more than one press article available online.

Hi and welcome, I've moved Jack Trevor Story and made a few formatting tweaks.  Jimfbleak .  Talk. 15:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

At my age
Hi, Just wanted to let you know that I have moved At my age to At My Age. I also did a little work on the article.Izzy007 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC) (My Talk)

Speedy deletion of Welsh journals online
A tag has been placed on Welsh journals online, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. The Llama! (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Morgannwg (magazine)
Re. the new article Morgannwg (magazine), this really does need more sources/references.

I can't see where the link given shows any information about this magazine - perhaps it is not yet available, but if that's the case, then the article shouldn't be on Wikipedia.

Are there any secondary reliable sources available?

Regarding all the information in the article - what is it's source, and how can I verify it? For example, "published since 1957, containing historical essays, archaeological reports and book reviews." - how can I check that?

Please see WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N,

Please let me know what you think. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  11:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The external link http://www.glamorganhistory.org/publications.html  gives the information included here:  I think that's enough for a stub? Martinlc (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a question to the Reliable Sources noticeboard about how far journals self-description needs to be verifiable.Martinlc (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[] discussion concluded that a reliable journal's self-description can be used for non-controversial statements but 3rd party evidence is neded for notability. I have therefore added reference to the selection of the journal by the National Library of Wales as important enough to be digitised.Martinlc (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Martin
Could you please watch the Juggalo page. Ibaranoff has reverted the changes you made. I changed them back but now he is reporting me as a vandal for doing so. I really don't know what to do. Thank you. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above editor has repeatedly vandalized articles and talk pages, does not understand or comprehend our policies, and repeatedly insists that everyone around him is wrong. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

TheFourFreedoms
Why do you say this editor hasn't been blocked? The block log shows him/her as being blocked early yesterday am. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Steve Peregrin Took
Good job! Fee can get a bit carried away.. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

xkcd link
I can't find which talk page or archive has it, but we did have a good discussion of the particular xkcd comic on centrifugal force, and had a decent consensus that it was a good illustration of the nature of fictitious and real centrifugal forces, and a valuable link. I'm not sure why some people think it should be removed, but if you think so, feel free to re-open the discussion on the talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Todd English
Nice work spotting and deleting the copyvio, I knew it smelled funny. I will take a look at the tags that I added to see if they can go too. – ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

QJ School deputy head thing
Thanks - I think that's neater and less unduly weighty. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

the Adrian Lamo article.
OK, here's the thing.

I get that there are numerous, numerous articles out there with significant issues that need correcting. And that you can't do due diligence on the facts of every single one.

However, the facts that you removed from Adrian Lamo are supported by numerous reliable sources just a Google search away. I strongly encourage you to discuss changes on the talk page and/or perform research in the form of a Google search before 86'ing large swathes of text. "Nuke it now and let someone else re-add it" isn't the most constructive editing policy.

I'd do this at this time myself, but I really want to avoid the appearance of biased editing, which is why I've limited myself to restoring the works of others. However, I am a rather longtime and prolific editor, and can certainly do the legwork if needed. I just don't think it'd seem appropriate. You're the one with the changes; it stands to reason that you might do a couple quick Google searches before removing relevant data.

I hope you understand that I'm trying to be diplomatic (albeit not all that well) rather than edit war.

If there's anything I can do to help you build better content in my corner of the net, please feel free to ask. Thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave Warwak
Hi there. I see that you have made several edits to this article; I believe the subject is non-notable, and have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Dave Warwak. Robofish (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: HRLN
I would cite offline resources soon. Nilotpal42 (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
PS I moved your question to the bottom of my talk page. Lova Falk    talk   16:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Judgment vs. judgement
The Myers-Briggs articles are written in American English and have used the spelling "judgment" for years. These articles are based on the works of Isabel Briggs Myers, who was American and used the spelling "judgment" in her works. The spelling was not chosen arbitrarily. The previous editor is the one who either violated WP:RETAIN, or did not realize that "judgment" is the preferred spelling in American English. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Post left on your user page
check out the last 4-5 external links on estulin better yet go to granma.cu surf around that website you will find an article related to estulin. Unless you have read it already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Del76toro (talk • contribs) 06:43, 24 August 2010


 * I've reverted his latest edits - it looks like a machine translation, which means almost certainly copyvio - as it wasn't actually sourced I couldn't check. But I think it was also far to much and deserved at most another sentence, even if sourced. Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brycheiniog (magazine)‎


The article Brycheiniog (magazine)‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neutralitytalk 03:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Brycheiniog (magazine) has now been nominated for deletion. Please consider weighing in at the deletion page. Jokestress (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

by the powers vested in me ...
I grant you a persistent +2 vs. trolls for protection and advancement of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV on and/or about Adrian Lamo and Talk:Adrian Lamo.

Seriously, that's all I'm thanking you for. Any right-thinking person would have seen that content and wondered what it was doing in an in an encyclopedia article. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing /w what I've done.

Thank you for your time and effort in improving the Wikipedia community.

Warm Regards,

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Low Dose Naltrexone article
Have responded on the article's talk page as you requested with some points for your consideration and possible action.

Diversitti (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Have responded on the article's talk page by asking you to restore content removed during your edit of 12 October 2013, in which you removed about 70 percent of the content of the article. Our exchange thus far, including my new posts responding to your earlier replies, seems to be leading to the conclusion that a great deal of this content should have been either left in place or edited and improved, but not entirely deleted. I'm relying upon you to make these repairs to the article, as you were the person who made the removals. Diversitti (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Gilligan allegations by Keith Vaz
As requested, please see the Talk page for Andrew Gilligan for reason why material has been reinstated.UsamahWard (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Gilligan entry sources
I note your recent removal of two sources from the article. The first source is difficult, not least because the original article was deleted, and I understand your reluctance to accept the quoted source. As the Internet Archive is more acceptable in Wikipedia, how would you feel using that to refer to the original article? https://web.archive.org/web/20110123055320/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100072691/extremist-leader-jailed-for-child-abuse/

On the second source, I would argue that this should be acceptable, as the source includes references both to the printed correction in the Telegraph, and a link to the existing correction published by the Telegraph online; it also provide context. The alternative would be to reference both Telegraph sources directly, but I'm not convinced this is better than using the original, single link, which does not seem to be problematic or controversial. UsamahWard (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In my view the article as it now stands has a strongly-sourced statement that an article he wrote was withdrawn because it made a false allegation.

I do not think in those circumstances that the precise details of the false allegation are needed, especially if it is hard to find the text.

On the second issue, I think enough context is supplied by the DT/ Gilligan's articles rather than going into the question of whether the Temple's bwebsite is reliable and notable. Wikipedia articles shouldn't provide a comprehensive account of a topic, and since this was one column he wrote then extended coverage in his bio would be WP:UNDUE. Martinlc (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Gusi Peace Prize
Thank you for your useful information. I will definitely cite sources from other publications. Please be assured that I am thankful for your assistance on this matter. Will take care of it. Keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacesurfer (talk • contribs) 04:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gusi Peace Prize, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glen Martin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Cambrian Archaeological Association for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cambrian Archaeological Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Cambrian Archaeological Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Szzuk (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

it's me again!
Hello,

I appreciate your taking the time to rv the FBI informants category on "my" page. It's a common misconception and there are conflicting sources. Having reviewed the relevant BLP guidelines, I believe | both clarifies the issue and is citable per BLP as a subject posting on an official, "Verified by Facebook" personal blog about an uncontroversial fact. Thus, if it comes up again, there's source & specificity..

I hope this message finds you well. Thanks for editing.

Warm regards,

— A drian L amo ··  01:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Camila Batmanghelidjh
Hi! I just removed the entire section; I see that you wanted to leave an explanation of sorts, but I think it's better to blanket WP:DENY. Have a good day! Keri (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Qaboos bin Said al Said
Shame upon you for saying one thing on the Qaboos bin Said al Said talk page and then seeking to completely erase the edit here.175.119.73.215 (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The version I reverted was not the wording that we had developed here.Martinlc (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ride the Lightning
Hi Martin. Would you mind if I just moved your vote at Talk:Ride_the_Lightning up slightly to where the rest of the votes are listed?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure- the layout was playing up on my screen.Martinlc (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gower Society


The article Gower Society has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:NORG. No reliable sources to establish notability"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rogermx (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Contemporary Wales for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Contemporary Wales is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Contemporary Wales until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Radnorshire Society Transactions


The article Radnorshire Society Transactions has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No sources, tagged for notability since 2011. A Google search does not uncover any in-depth independent sources."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)