User talk:MartinSFSA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Adelaide High School

Hi

I removed your note about the SFSA because I considered it not to be encyclopedic. I thought it was not relevant to someone trying to find out about Adelaide High School from an encyclopedic perspective. See also

WP:NOT#SOAP, try not to write about things that you have a strong personnel involvement in. ...maelgwntalk 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Your large amount of personnel involvement is entirely relevant, it means that the reasons for your changes are to push a personal agenda rather than to improve the content of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a way to stop the double booking of their facilities. No I will not agree to moderation and suggest you post on Talk:Adelaide High School. PS Why do you keep emailing me? ...maelgwntalk 08:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


As Lt. Doolittle told Bomb #20, the origin of the argument is not important. Your "not soap" links to screed on bias, not interest. Any subjective experience can be couched in "neutral point of view" terms, and hence be objective. From Wikipedia's point of view they aren't against objective information, just biased propaganda. From your arguement anyone with an interest should be barred from anything they know about. The school has requested we add this to their entry, are they (being the subject) also too personally involved?

As to it not being encyclopedic, I don't know what model you're using. Take the example of the first public execution in the colony of South Australia. If I put this up in the other uses of site subentry would you remove it? If yes your're wrong, it's relevant to the school. And if no you're still wrong, as the club is relevant to the school entry. PS because this is the first time I've used a talk page. ...martinsfsa 13:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the school is personally involved and should not be involved in the contents of it's page on wikipedia. Yes but you're club is not relevant to the school. Its has no impact on education at the school, the schools history, foundings, curriculm, staff, students, current student achievements ... all the things that are notable to anyone interested in the school ...maelgwntalk 05:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you are saying this, as we're not saying it's any of those things but another use of the site. It is a part of the school. It is going in the school history book. It's relevant both to the school, and all the other people who keep being double booked with us. There's a place for this information and it's in this entry! All organisations with this kind of relationship should be listed in the school entry. All other uses of the site should be available through the entry. What do you suggest to make this happen? A separate entry listing other uses? And what about the first execution? Would you remove that? As you won't agree to mediation, will you at least seek a second opinion? ...martinsfsa 18:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about posting on the Talk:Adelaide High Schooltalk page? You don't have to ask me to do anything, i have just as much power as you. You could even just revert it and see what happens...maelgwntalk 00:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite true--I'm being creative and you're being destructive. It takes time for me to put up these changes and no time at all for you to obliterate them. I'd like some consensus before putting the effort it. If you will agree to putting up a second entry of other site uses it'd be worth my time. Would you contribute to such an entry? ...martinsfsa 07:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The formal proposal

Sir, I suggest that the present you is not the orginal you, but is a mere proposal of yourself. If one would like to disagree with my proposal, then I suggest that you are quite possibly disagreeing with yourself. Of course, one could be wrong, which would lead one into all sorts of discussions about if one is truly one's own self. Do you agree? Answers on a postcard please, to be sent to...--andreasegde (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Join

You could add your name to this, as you reverted a vandal on Macca's page (which shows a caring attitude, and for which we are extremely grateful). It's a lot nicer inside the house, and you would be very welcome. :)--andreasegde (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'd have already done so if I was into it. As it is I'm already a member of a group: the South Australian Doctor Who Fan Club, and that should be enough for any man! MartinSFSA (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, I remember watching the first B&W episodes when the intro was a striped tunnel that the camera flew down/through (which was probably just an effect). The strange thing was that I had the same vision when my dentist gave me gas to put me under. Yes, it used to be allowed... :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot; I think the Macca problem just may have been solved.--andreasegde (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for that! I only date back to when it was in colour; no possibility I saw any now missing episodes. MartinSFSA (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Talk! 08:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

You have reinstated a press release. I provided an edit summary on first reversion, but not on subsequent removal. MartinSFSA (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi Martin! The SFSA should have given away who I was talking to on the Reliable sources noticeboard‎, but I'm dense that way. I trust that you are well. :) Is the SFSA still going? - Bilby (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again and thanks for your advice! Going it is (AGM Saturday week) and a third distribution of publications to each High School in SA will hopefully get some more members; you'd think having the show in production again would do this but numbers remain static. MartinSFSA (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double Gammas

Thanks for the message. The overriding guideline for notability is

WP:RS.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The tag is there because it was the closest one for this situation - I can change it to the simple notability tag if that makes things easier. Either way the article has notability issues and you should be ready in case another editor nominates it for deletion under the Afd process. – ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but the tag is there because I do not think it does meet the notability guidelines. – ukexpat (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who

Unfortunate; however, since it's shown in the UK first, you'd expect the article to be edited to reflect that, and I doubt there's anything can be done about it. Whereas we did have a {{Spoiler}} template, its use seems now to be deprecated, and even so, given the enthusiasm some editors have for jumping the gun, it's not surprising to find such matters discussed on the talk page. Sorry, it's a fact of life. --Rodhullandemu 19:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auntie Jack and Bob Askin

I wish I could say Auntie Jack was a relative of mine, but I can't. :) JackofOz (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:DG.PNG

Thanks for uploading

Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation
linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Web of Fear

Thanks for your message - how about a little politeness and belief in "good faith"??? I listened to a reputable, genuine interview from an actor who stated he had been told the episodes had been found. I do not follow every single Doctor Who fansite, news site or fan club and cannot be expected to know what was a "disreputable rumour" two years ago. I acted in good faith and do not expect to be told off by the resident Doctor Who schoolmaster. A simple polite message pointing out that this rumour was discredited two years ago would have sufficed.Paul75 (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MartinSFSA. My bad. I guess I misunderstood everything I read lead me to believe that it was all found. They said 5 episodes were found, I thought they already had one & so that would complete serial. oops. Now I understand my mistake. Sorry,

Speedy deletion nomination of Tracy muzyk

criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies
.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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 page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. WWGB (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teller

Er, sorry about that. Didn't realize that and had not seen the previous discussions. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Doctor Who. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. magnius (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your post on my talk page

I just read your post on my talk page, and have no idea what universe you are living in. I stand by absolutely everything I've said on the Talk:Doctor Who#Kennedy assassination thread as factually accurate, logically valid and to the point under discusasion. If by "do it on our talk pages" you mean here instead of that of the article under discussion, I do not see any reason for that at all and will deal with this there only now. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Force 10 from Navarone

Can you please make this verification notes?

Verification for bridge: In the Movie: http://www.fancast.com/blogs/wp-content/post_images/force10fromnavarone.jpg Real location:

SR Montenegro, Yugoslavia
, but not Bosnia)

(please your post answer here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.18.34 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No and no. I have no idea where the fictional bridge is supposed to be or if that bridge stands in for it at the location; it is a fictional bridge at a fictional location. If you want to put up an argument that this should link to that particular entry then please make it on the Navareone talk page.MartinSFSA (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, calm down. :) I still believe that it is incorrect to say that bridge is in Bosnia, as nobody mentions Bosnia and Herzegovina in entire movie. However, the place I mentioned above was used as a movie location. In film credits are also mentioned locations like Malta and Channel Islands. Maybe I should enter talk page. I just wanted assistance to do verification, I am new on Wikipedia and I am not sure how to perform it in right way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.246.86 (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now that I will do. Remove "Bosnia" in favour of "Yugoslavia" and at the location in "Film Facts". Summary of both changes to talk page. Everyone's happy. MartinSFSA (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double Gammas merge

I have replied to you on my talk page. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and again.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and again.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Please wait while this is being examined at Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies/Unblock#121.220.136.67.  Sandstein  09:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the admin who blocked IP 121.220.136.67 also blocked several thousand other numbers over a couple of days of terror -- two and a half years ago. This asteroid of poo is still wandering around near Earth, just waiting to strike any unfortunate user whose IP dynamically changes to any of the blocked numbers. May I suggest unblocking them all unless there's some more recent evidence of "open proxies"? MartinSFSA (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really recommend avoiding the personal attacks. The IP is now unblocked. The admin is unlikely to have repeated this type of blocking spree since I brought it to his attention, some time ago. The list of IPs to be unblocked is still in the queue of work to be done. There's always lots to do. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zzuzz, hope the hypersensitivity clears up sometime soon. If I get around to making a personal attack it wouldn't be about a fanciful "asteroid of poo". And why not; I've had enough hours to contemplate it. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who missing episodes

Hi, I've responded on my talk page. (Just getting the hang of them.)DubbleM (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there's no need to source the removal of inaccurate information? Otherwise articles would be full of ridiculous cites! 86.24.51.29 (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Myth busted, with cite. 86.24.51.29 (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From DANE YOUSSEF

Vandalizing how?! What I wrote was FACT. People honestly did laugh when Wood died and Kathy said, "The world has lost a great writer." Cruel? Yes. Vandalism? NEVER!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DANE YOUSSEF (talk • contribs) 08:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not funny or clever. You'll be banned if you don't stop. MartinSFSA (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Thanks Martin - happy to help out - very glad it meets with your approval. Dunks (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Morrison

Martin, For some reason you keep editing James Morrisons Wikepiedia entry to say he downloaded a copy of the Spanish National Anthem? This is complete fabrication. You are citing a transcript of an interview on enough rope. A quote of which follows.

"Well, they sent me the music and they said, "Here's the Spanish anthem, learn it, play it." It was a gig, and...great. And so I learnt it and I... I don't know why, it wasn't a foreboding, but I thought, I'd better make sure I've got the right track, that I don't learn the one next...the Swedish national anthem or something. So I actually put the disk they'd sent in my computer - you know it identifies what's on it - it came up with, from the Net, not their disk, "Spanish National Anthem". "Good, I've got the right track." It came up with that because it WAS the Spanish national anthem, but the wrong one....."

Nowhere in this quote does it say he downloaded it from a peer to peer network. It came from a disc released by Master Song Australia copyright Master tech Pty Ltd released By MRA (now bankrupt). This disc is STILL available for purchase in some record stores, which is where it came from in the first place.

What he says is he put the disc into a computer and let one of the online databases check the song names. The disc was provided to him by Tennis Australia. Feel free to contact me [email protected] to clarify this if you don't understand any of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.229.220 (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear office,
May I suggest that, if it is as you say (and at variance with Morrison's comments), and you are unwilling to learn, that you seek help from someone who knows how to edit Wikipedia? MartinSFSA (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double Gammas

Hi Martin1 Great to hear from you again. :) I hope things are going well with the club - my family are all very exciting about the new companion. :) I'm not sure what to do with the Double Gammas content. I assume that main issue is the list of winners not being included? If not, we can certain expand the coverage in the larger article, but I'm not sure if we can justify the full list, although I think that there is a case for it, and I'd like to see it kept. We could easily justify an external link to sfsa for the list, if that would help. But I'm very happy to do what I can. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Range block

Accept reason:

I have granted you IP-block exemption, which will allow you to edit freely despite the rangeblock in place. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MartinSFSA (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an

full blocks affecting your IP address
when you are logged in.

Please read the page

IP block exemption conditions
.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Reality Bites may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Bites'' featured [[Winona Ryder]], pictured here in 2008]][[Winona Ryder]], pictured here in 2008]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

talk) 17:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The Shapies

I have removed the hoax tag, you may want to read more about the tag, it is only for those subjects that are "blatant and obvious hoax", a program that has thousands of mentions around internet is obviously not a hoax. Article may require improvement, just like every other article of wikipedia, you can try

AfD
if you think that the article should be deleted.

Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you every seen the Shapies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurRead1234 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of vandalism

Hi,

Please be careful of accusations of vandalism without good reason, i.e. on Bob Oblong

For instance you reverted my edit of October 2013 as "Revert more vandalism" [1], but the image file File:Bob Oblong.jpg does not exist, still does not exist, and has no history of existing on either English Wikipedia [2] or Commons [3].

Removal of invalid content is not vandalism! Regards KylieTastic (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArthurRead1234

Hi. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArthurRead1234 as you were the one who originally reported this. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016
: Voting now open!

Hello, MartinSFSA. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections
is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Regarding your edit on Talk:Indigo children#Dallas Observer here, I recommend that you read wp:No personal attacks and wp:assume good faith Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this comment here? User:Zenithfel was banned for being a sock puppet of User:Sopher99. Or am I missing something? MartinSFSA (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Batavia (ship), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Craig. 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) 09:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at
Game of Life
(November 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drewmutt was:
This submission is not adequately supported by
Referencing for beginners and Citing sources
.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 06:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! MartinSFSA, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 06:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MartinSFSA. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Game of Life (TV programme) has been accepted

grading scheme
to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation
if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kerry (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NoACEMM

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the

burden to provide them
is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MartinSFSA&oldid=1187247167"