User talk:Martin of Sheffield

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

   * November 2011
   * June 2012
   * August 2013
   * October 2014
   * January 2016
   * September 2016
   * July 2017
   * June 2018
   * March 2019
   * April 2020
   * November 2022

It is approximately 11:33 PM where this user lives (England). [refresh]

TUSC token 0d2143de092c67c18c2277c4667fe01e[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Reversion of edit to Union Jack[edit]

Hi there. I changed the title of the infobox as it was not consistent with the article title. But I see you have reverted that. I have looked on the talk page as you suggested, but I couldn't see what you were referring to specifically. I am guessing there must be some reason why the infobox and article title should be different, but I am not sure what it is. If you have a sec, can you enlighten me? Thanks. Point of Presence talk 15:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a long history of edit wars between those who prefer the formal name and those that want to use the nickname. Go back through the archives if you've nothing better to do! The de facto consensus is to leave the choice of name to whoever wrote that particular sentence. It's not very satisfactory, but there are strong feelings on both sides; should the flag be respected and treated as other national flags or just dismissed with its nickname? See for instance Flag of the United States where the nickname is mentioned but is not the article title. Hence my reversion to maintain the status quo. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

okey doke. Sounds good. Thanks Point of Presence talk 15:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sean Leonard's lacking information.[edit]

Hello, Martin. I know you gave Seasider53 warning about John Smeaton. But this time, I have a problem. Yesterday Seasider53 had removed the edit with the source that wasn't approved saying Robert had married his wife Gabriella in 2008. It causes a lot of information to get unhealthy. Without it, people would think Robert didn't have a wife. I even left a talk section on the talk page but somehow removed it because the user didn't care about it. So please, can you fix this issue and tell Seasider53 not to do it again as well as other users who removed it? Thank you. PS, if that user did it again, just please take action for me. 103.3.81.102 (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@103.3.81.102:. I've investigated the sources you quote. I'm not sure that Vim Buzz is the best, but it is not on any list of proscribed or deprecated sources. People is on a list that describes it as reliable. Therefore I have formatted the citations and added a request that editors discuss this before any further reverts occur.

Have you considered creating an account? It is much easier to ensure that discussion reach the right person! You may also find that some editors will automatically assume an IP-user to be inexperienced. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield[edit]

Do you actually live in Sheffield? I was looking for someone over there to take a photo for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Sorry, no. I was born, and in part raised, there but now am an exile in the southeast. Try talking to Sheffield History, they're a nice bunch of chaps, very enthusiastic. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OT: Uncleftish beholdings[edit]

Middle English is impenetrable to me and I never could read Beowulf in the original. However, I believe that Thorn was still used in Modern English.

Poul Anderson (ז״ל) restricted himself in Uncleftish Beholdings to words that were intelligible to the modern reader; roughly, he used the Germanic half of Modern English. I actually found it an easy read when I could get past the laughter, and composed a critique in the same style. I miss him. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being a bit pedantic (well it is my talk page

), Beowulf and the Englisce Wikipedia are in Old English, often called Ango-Saxon. Middle English is far closer to modern English, it is the languages of Chaucer and Langland.

        List! wen Arthur he was King,
        He had all att his leadinge
           The broad Ile of Brittaine.
        England and Scottland one was,
        And Wales stood in the same case,
           The truth itt is not to layne.

The opening verse of Sir Gawaine and the Greene Knight, using modern typography, a typical Middle English poem.

Thanks. I can actually understand that. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Signature[edit]

Hi, the problem with this is you've given an incorrect date and time for the edit. Once someone has added the {{unsigned}} template you don't need to do anything. DuncanHill (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inline links[edit]

Is there a reason why you re-introduced the inline links in the Rochdale article? 10mmsocket (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that you mean the links to "Bridgewater Canal", "Ashton Canal" and "Cheshire Ring"? If so it was just as I was writing about the first stage restoration which had been overlooked. I've checked the article and there is a previous instance of the Bridgewater canal being mentioned and it is linked there, so I've removed the link in the section I wrote. I can't find either the Ashton Canal or the Cheshire ring mentioned previously, so I've left the links in place. I hope that is satisfactory. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it was the stuff in the demographics section. I removed them all (diff), then you put them all back in (diff). 10mmsocket (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it wasn't about internal links, it was inline external links. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've found out what happened. I must have been looking at [1]. I thought it was the latest version, and noticed that the subheading "Decline of Textile Manufacturing" was for some reason bolded, I therefore edited it to remove the bolding, without realising that I was still looking at an old version. I can only apologise for what was a silly mistake, not one that I've made before as far as I can remember. The diff is here which should make things plain. Once again, I'm sorry for the extra work you've been put to, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thanks for working out what happened & responding. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo guidance computer - welded ICs[edit]

Hello there, I am writing about ICs used in Apollo guidance computer - the photo, where I edited subtitle few days ago. The ICs are trully welded to PCB, because this connection was much more reliable than soldering. More info here: https://www.rit.edu/imagine/exhibit-extras/Apollo-Guidance-Computer-ImagineRIT-SKurinec.pdf 94.113.240.226 (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, I've added a note to this effect into the main body of the text and cited Kurinec et al. If you have a better published source that actually explains why (and preferably how) welding was done, it would be appreciated. As someone who is positively adding to Wikipedia, may I invite you to create an account? Please read WP:ACCOUNT which describes the benefits. Kind regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the truly official ratio of the Union flag[edit]

the government commonly use 2:1 but the college of arms recommend 3:5 for use on land And 1:2 at sea but in fact The College of arms has no authority in Scotland The competent authority in Scotland is the king lord of arms Scotland And their agency says the Union flag has a 1:2 ratio. Dhanesh prhmaraj (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a citation for that then it would be sensible to mention it in the article. I've had a look at the Court of the Lord Lyon (the Lord Lyon King of Arms is the authority to which you refer) but there doesn't appear to be a statement about the Union Flag proportions. Whilst I'm happy to discuss this here, it would probably be better to take the discussion to Talk:Union Jack#Ratio so that all interested parties can take part and the discussion will be ultimately archived and searchable along with the article. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cunningham Steam Wagon[edit]

I think you made a bit of a mess with the references. We had two different articles in a journal. You deleted one altogether (along with the content that cited it) without explanation and converted the other to a different reference-style (CITEVAR?) that now cites it as if it is a whole single book rather than a periodical (less accurate and harder to trace). Could you explain your reasonings please? I see similar content to what cited the other article is there (cited to the one remainining article). But the other article does contain additional details (it is a specific additional lead ref, not just redundant cite for the content). DMacks (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: You make a valid point, I had indeed overlooked that there were multiple issues bound within the single volume. I've reinstated a link to the second article which is an advert (therefore a bit of an issue with WP:SPONSORED), hence I preferred the journal article over the advert where the same information was presented. The link to page 102 was always there, but it should now be simpler being direct. ~~As regards CITEVAR, do you regard a heading and one citation to a paragraph in a book as having established a referencing style?~~ I can reverse the citation variety. As an admin and an editor of far greater experience than me, what would you like? It's getting on a bit in the evening here, but I'd be happy to start changing things over in the morning (UK time). Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Beaufoy.[edit]

Forgive me for commenting but the print of a portrait reproduced in the article about Mark Beaufoy the astronomer looks to me a print of his father. Reasons: 1. The dress is late 18th century when Mark the astonomer was just a young man; the sitter in the print looks middle-aged. 2. The same print is used in a book about the Beaufoy family by Gwendoline Beaufoy, "Leaves of a Beach Tree" published by Blackwell in 1930, available freely on-line. Gwendoline's husband was a descendant of your Mark but she identifies the print as Mark's father, Vinegar Manufacturer of Cupers Gardens, Southwark. He died in 1782. Gwendoline states, the original painting by Gainsbrough hung in the front hall at the vinegar works which moved to Lambeth around 1813. The London Metropolitan Archives hold the family papers which record that in 1941 a bomb fell on the property killing a relative and destroying the original portrait. There probably is a portrait of your Mark somewhere but I don't think the one shown is it. 2A00:23C7:F494:2401:3906:1F75:900D:6C25 (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to forgive. A polite reasoned discussion is always welcome, even if it show up an error. I shall investigate. One small thing though, when referring to a page on talk or help pages, a courtesy link makes life easier. Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've researched the image and it appears on a number of Wiki sites. The source of the image is in Wikicommons. Tracing that back to the National Portrait Gallery confirms your supposition, the print is of the father, not the son. I've removed the image from the English Wikipedia's article, and left messages on other sites. I've also corrected the information in Wikicommons. Once again, thank you. Have you considered becoming an editor yourself? Someone who is positively helping the encyclopaedia is always welcome. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mines[edit]

As they also asked and I want to show our grandchildren where I worked they may find a map helpful. They may be looking for less detail than x yards along tunnel y? BlueWren0123 (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) They specifically asked for plans.

(2) Overlays suggest that they wanted to show where the tunnels and faces were in relation to the surface.

(3) any decent map will show the location of he pitheads, why therefore ask for help?

Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 yes I agree with you. 2. Not so sure. 3. Many previous industrial sites are later built over (with houses) and no surface evidence may remain.

The way a questioner uses a word may be different from the way the listener uses it. Someone who has been involved in preparing an encyclopedia may be thinking of a formal definition of a word that the questioner may not have intended.

A surface map may be an acceptable consolation. BlueWren0123 (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well we'll just have to wait until the OP gets back to us and clarifies things then. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

w.r.t. 3 as near as I can tell the previous mine is now where 'The Flavour Base Sauce Company Limited' is now located (google maps). This is not a big thing for me, I was just interested to know if my supposition had eventuated in this case. BlueWren0123 (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two Bolsover shafts are located in woodland either side of the end of Intake Road. The eastern shaft's capping is just about discernible in the satellite view, but the western pit is hidden by trees. The three Shirebrook shafts are under what I think is the western warehouse of Sports Direct. That is unusual, the shaft cappings are often not built over for fear of possible future collapse. Perhaps because these are relatively late closures they assume the concrete will last forever! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Railway had/has ongoing subsidence problems. Still little to show grandchildren? Has Sports Direct taken this into account with the location of their Body Building products? BlueWren0123 (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidence can be bad enough, but the failing of a shaft capping is a total nightmare. 40-odd years ago I fellow I knew had a transport depot in Dudley. He was not amused when one weekend a large hole appeared in the middle of the yard. When part of the Dudley canal tunnel was being dug they had used a ventilation/construction shaft which was subsequently capped over and forgotten. Manoeuvring lorries over the cap triggered the failure of 200 year old timbers. British Waterways wanted to sue him for damaging their canal, he wanted to sue BWB for their shaft not being properly capped. I never did hear the outcome though. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of "Murphy was an optimist" (Murphy's law). BlueWren0123 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your contributions to Leros!!! BigAvgeek123 (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]