Jump to content

User talk:MartinHarper: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ruhrjung (talk | contribs)
5,462 edits
mNo edit summary
Mbecker (talk | contribs)
3,408 edits
No edit summary
Line 292: Line 292:
At the moment it seems as the anti-semitism article is improving, to a great deal due to your influence. I will with interest follow how long it takes before it detoriates again. ;->>><br>
At the moment it seems as the anti-semitism article is improving, to a great deal due to your influence. I will with interest follow how long it takes before it detoriates again. ;->>><br>
-- [[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 20:32 20 May 2003 (UTC)
-- [[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 20:32 20 May 2003 (UTC)
----
I just wanted your opinion, what do you think of the latest clitoris image I uploaded? If the none zoom version better? Should I put it to a vote? [[User:Mbecker|MB]] 02:25 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:25, 23 May 2003

Please add talk to the bottom. Old talk will be summarised/deleted/moved as I feel up to it - I'll try to be fair in doing this - if I'm not, be bold in fixing dodgy summaries!

Comments made by banned users will typically be moved to the user's talk page and left unanswered. Or some variation on that.

Unsigned stuff is probably written by me.

See also: user talk:MyRedDice/refactoring

Summarised Talk

  • Welcome! --Camembert
  • Welcome! --Ed Poor
    • thanks to both for making me feel welcome - and to everyone else who said hi elsewhere :)
  • If you stick to "MyRedDice | Martin" then people will get to know you fairly soon. --Ed Poor
  • I don't think you needed to disambiguate British. Mintguy
    • Yeah, that was dumb. reverted now :)

Discussion of the OSI model with user_talk:hfastedge - moved to talk:OSI model

  • Are you serious about the "most embarrasing thing sent to my work"? (anon)
    • Vaguely not-terribly serious.
  • Just merge pages: be bold. (anon)
    • I'm just lazy...
  • Sorry to give offence. Two16
    • Thanks very much :)
  • Regarding the ethical question of those who print discrediting material, it's important to ask whether it was knowing or unknowing. Practically difficult, though. --Uncle Ed
    • another insoluble mystery of history
  • I am sometimes a little bit "facétieuse" User:anthere
    • I shouldn't have reacted so sharply... ;-)
  • I sent you an email. jaimenote
    • Thanks for the mail :)
  • Thanks for adding the appropriate credits to the resized Peacock picture!snoyes 17:02 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)
    • no probs :)
  • check out the difference in quality! snoyes
  • "Equal opportunity roasting place" -ROFL 'Vert
    • I enjoy a well-executed troll, but would prefer to avoid seeing one executed
  • I made thirteen into one. User:AstroNomer
    • ...and so saved me from uttering that fateful word "vandal"
  • could you email Abacci? Jimbo Wales 14:58 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)
    • So mote it be.
  • There is a certain level of micro-management, as in dates, beyond which things become unacceptable. By the way, my vote is for sale! Tannin
    • It becomes clear...
  • I'm still against consolidating the pages. Anonymous56789
    • Don't you feel that combining results in a more informative article?
  • Thanks for Wikipedia:ISBN! -- Toby 12:02 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • Yeay - a response with a thanks and and exclamation mark :)
  • I thought I should say: I reverted an edit by an anonymous user Sfmontyo Mar 17, 2003
    • And the revert was so polite and elegant that we had no further trouble from that user

Image discussion with º¡º moved to Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Images on description pages

Content regarding copyright status of images moved to Talk:Images of Rachel Corrie

  • You just need to tap your ruby slippers together. Uncle Ed 22:04 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • I look good in them, don't I? --Dorothy
  • Welcome to Jazz Club, where we don't delete sensible redirects
  • About this discrepancy in Aristotle... RK
    • Excellent suggestion - I'll bow out in favour of the experts now
  • do you know a lot of vicars? Nevilley 07:25 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • Should I?
  • Elizabeth II has two images, only one of which has been stolen STÓD/ÉÍRE
    • The Queen is poorer following my cockup
  • But does she edit Wikipedia? STÓD/ÉÍRE 22:53 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • bad edit on What wikipedia is not. Rotem Dan 18:49 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Changing the numbering is bad
  • good point - but it's not the bible, you know... -- Rotem Dan 19:03 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
  • I think you should have consulted the WikiEN mailing list Rotem Dan 15:45 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Go not to wikiEN-l for advice, for they shall say both "yes" and "no" and "this should be discussed on meta".
  • What would we do without you? -- NetEsq 02:58 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • You managed fine before...
  • These types of little fights (over capitalisation) could not occur in German or French --user:anthere
    • their loss ;-)
  • Apology accepted. :-) Danny (I inadvertantly called him a Zionist - oops)
  • I forgot to update my age on my home page...
    • when you get older...you even forget how old you are, and need to count... User:anthere
      • When you get older still, you forget how to count...
  • Let it wash around you like water around a rock -º¡º
    • One cannot learn about filth without touching the mire Martin
  • "sophomore year" and "second year" - aren't they simply difference between the dialects? --Menchi 08:58 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • For those not used to american educative peculiarities, second year means something where Sophomore does not --Ant
  • International English then? --Menchi 10:49 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • If there is an international term available, let us use it.
  • this was an oversight 172
    • please try to see more

New talk

Now you see why I stay away from the Wikipedia:Are You a Wikipediholic Test. ;) -- John Owens 20:53 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Just a thought: you might want to make your sarcasm a bit more obvious. I think User:Sonya L really thought you wanted her burned as a witch. :-) Evercat 21:15 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! She's being repressed!
Eh? -- Evercat 22:17 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail: [1], [2]
Scene 5? Are there any swallows in that one? -- John Owens
African or European?

User:Jacques Delson informed me that you removed some material from [DMCA]]. In the interim (not knowing it was already floating around) I created a page for OCILLA and I think all the stuff you took out is on the OCILA talk page. I am going to try and merge whatever is there that I didn't cover on the page. I put a short intro to sec. 512 on DMCA and have links to OLICCA that now has its own page. BTW, using the legal disclaimer on OCILLA is a good idea, but perhaps we shouldn't overuse it (I only put it in when the information is so specific that someone might actually rely upon it). Alex756 23:26 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

That's why I put it there :)
Thanks. Alex756

I don't get it Martin. You add all the npov disputed links. I suppose you base yourself on the disputed page links. But, many times, there are no indication of the dispute in the talk page, we don't even see what is disputed in the page precisely, and we don't know who disputed it. Possibly, the dispute was from a year ago, the page was reworked, there is no dispute anymore. So...is the link going to stay foreever at the top of the page then ? How do you plan it to be removed ? User:anthere

Based on wikipedia:pages needing attention and the now defunct wikipedia:votes for NPOV. I did check that the pages have not been (substantially) reworked since being listed. In the cases you mention talk to the Anome about hir reasons if you want to find out what is disputed - or just remove the header if you think it's perfectly sound.
if you checked accordance between last substantial edits time and report time, that is probably fine. Hum...if the reporter put his name or any indication he might think wrong in the votes for NPOV page, it would be good to report it in the article talk page perhaps ? Just an opinion.
I would prefer not to remove the header. It is probably not a reason to judge another one opinion is not relevant because of my own opinion on the matter :-)
this said because of the author is not a decent motive to me... (anthere)
me neither, but I didn't really want to take a unilateral decision, you know? :-/ Martin
don't fine me any wiki-smiles ;-) Martin
fine you ? Euh...no. I think you are a little bit too much of a "cleaner" for my taste sometimes. I still think it "wrong" to immediately refactor a discussion after it happened (or even an ongoing discussion). There is no reason to hurry doing such a job (except in case of vandalism perhaps), and imho, it was rude of you. Better wait at least a couple of days, if not weeks, before doing so to avoid hurting other people feelings. But, hey, some people are cleaners by heart. I guess this is your case. I am more slow and conservative. Free wiki-kiss.
Yeah, I'm something of a minimalist at heart :) But it sounds like you're thinking of a particular instance? could you drop me a link? I do try to avoid being rude... Martin
[3] precisely. I was trying to gather my thoughts on this, also to write two articles on en about Donella Meadows meanwhile. Wrote to someone I did not know at all, dropped him the links to discuss it with him. When he dropped by, the discussion was gone. All refactored, any superfluous hair tightly hidden under the cap. Well...that is not how my mind works. I am the dispersed type. I put thoughts, till I succeed to gather them. I saw your refactoring as a negation of my thought process. This would have been perfect on a wiki article. This would have been ok on meta a month later perhaps; it would have been ok if you had moved all to the talk page. But no. This doubly as you refered to a wikipedia article to shut me up, as if a wikipedia article was necessarily a "true" reference.
I intended to work more on this article, give more simple and relevant examples in the list perhaps. Now I fear that if I do an edit, when I come back the next day, my thoughts are gone.
Hmm. You're right, that was rude. I've restored the text at meta:Talk:Twelve leverage points, and will respond there... have done.

Hi, I noticed that Big Six of Progressive Rock is an orphan. I don't know enough about the topic to link it with other articles. Could you find some way to have other articles point to it? :) Kingturtle 06:33 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Listing it on wikipedia:votes for deletion would be my preferred method... Martin
Martin, I see that you are cleaning up the Annoying Users page, and carefully walked around my complaint abut the PBT fanatics without stepping on it. (Doubtless because I have complained once or twice about vaguely similar moves - on my talk page & etc.) In this particular instance, the comments are stale, and in any case the users in question seem to have dissappeared for the time being. (Something over which I shall shed no tears.) So move away, delete, whatever. Best -- Tannin
Cheers Tannin - I was just picking the low-hanging fruit first: annoyances from 2002 that nobody even remembers, let alone complains about... :)
Shame Buddha's gone - I miss his robust approach to things. :-(

Sorry about the Firehouse thing - I just woke up and was in a bad mood. I could have handled that better.... --mav

Thanks for apologising, but totally no worries - I knew what I was doing was a bit dodgy, but I really wanted to comment on specific bits, without all that tedious cutting and pasting. You know how it is, sometimes... :)

Why did you even bother editing Puchland? Do you really think this is encyclopedia material?--Eloquence 17:48 15 May 2003 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on the subject. There is no Jimbo Wales.

I added some questions to Wikipedia:Are You a Wikipediholic Test just for you. See if you can find them :) MB 21:25 15 May 2003 (UTC)

I just realized what my big problem with the Communist state, Communist government entries is. This is Wikipedia, in which entries are cross-linked to each other automatically whenever anyone makes a link to an entry, whether or not they know what's in that entry. So it's imperative that the entries are under titles that properly express how they would be used in a sentence by someon who doesn't know what's in the entry's text.

So how would [[Communist state]] and [[Communist goverment]] be used? In sentences like:

It seems to me that right now the entries don't reflect that usefully. I know I haven't explained myself well, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. --The Cunctator 14:56 May 16, 2003 (UTC)

Cunctator, I agree completely, and I regard the current situation as having essentially duplicate articles (including much content on communism, in fact). However, I don't want to declare edit war on the subject, so I shall be content with clear cross-links at the top of the article. Martin 21:24 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Just realized you added a link to Image:Clitoris.jpg back to Clitoris. I noticed you said "pending the uploading of a better photo" By pure coincidence, I uploaded the edited version I had created last night. How did you know? :) MB 15:06 16 May 2003 (UTC)

BTW, Mbecker == MB == Mbecker. I wasn't sure if you were aware of that by your last statement. Were you aware of it? Should I change my sig? MB 00:44 17 May 2003 (UTC)
I was aware - just noting in case anyone else is reading ;-)

Hi Martin, I've just been looking through Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, I don't particularly mind Thats how a nigger goes being undeleted but what do you think we should do about the copyright violation in the edit history? I assume that even though it's not in the current version of the article it still counts as a violation in the eyes of the law. I could be wrong though. Would re-deleting and then making a new article at Thats how a nigger goes, redirecting as it does now, with a summary in the Thats how a nigger goes talk page of the page's history be acceptable? I'm just interested in your opinion, Ams80 15:46 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Martin does not give legal advice
Check meta:Wikipedia and copyright issues and read from the bit that says "== Ams80 can start reading here! ==", about halfway down, which starts "Is it necessary that the copyrighted text entirely disappear [...] or can it stay in the history?". As far as I know, that's the most recent state of play.
One could also use NetEsq's argument - we delete copyright violations not because Jimbo Wales might get sued (he won't: he's protected under OCILLA) but for reasons of quality control (if wikipedia articles are generally free of copyright violations then they can be used more freely by sublicensees). Hence, removing the copyright text from the article is sufficient for the purposes of quality control. Martin
Thanks Martin, I've put the meta article back how it was. I love the term Grandfathering by the way, it should definitely be used more often! Something I just discovered is that at the bottom of older versions of articles there isn't the same copyright notice that there is on the current version. I guess perhaps that's related to this issue in that an older versoin might be an older version because it doesn't satusfy the GFDL. Thanks for the help -- Ams80 19:51 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Hello Martin.
Would you be ever so kind as to undelete the last of the Wikipedia:votes for undeletion to be reviewed ? You stated you would look, but seem to have been somehow diverted on another river. Thanks for your help. Ant

I thought you were a sysop now?

I am actively trying to resist being one :-) that is tough. Somehow, I believe when I am, that means I give up. maybe I will change my mind on that opinion. Maybe I will give up. Possibly. But I try not to.
If I am, that means I will perhaps forget the pain of being a regular user. And forget to try to make things change. And forget they are people here who are submitted to the will of some in the community. Maybe I will forget humility. The one acting for me, must not forget I have the right to speak up my mind, I have the right to access to information to make informed decisions. This should be true for any of the acts sysops do. I am quite sure in 99% of cases, sysops are making good acts, coherent with the consensus reached among all users. But sometimes, there are errors. Regular users should have access to the information allowing them to check from time to time, they must have tools to report their questions and request, and they should be granted feedback. A bottom to top process. Not decisions taken by a little group. Decisions taken together. Equality of impact. If one does not allow checking possibilities, does not provide tools for requests and gift of actions/reactions to opinions, the system is just wrong. There is now the tool for asking. There is maybe someone to answer requests. But it is not good a regular user has to ask you to do the checking for him/her. A regular user should be able to "see" himself the deleted article, without depending on the good will of another person. In the wiki way. I can do it the easy way, say "ok" to being a sysop, and then forget all about it, since I will then be able to check by myself and scream if necessary. Or I can bug you (:-(), or perhaps the deletion system can change and the regular user can see deleted files. Then, with raincloud on top, what will a sysop really be ? Then, I could be one :-) Do you understand ?

but right, I could be weak and say ok. I am sure you could sum all this in 15 words. je suis folle à lier. Prêtre-ouvrière :-)))

I think I understand - and applaud you for your principles and standards :)
In the meantime, I'll try to get onto thsoe ~6 articles this week sometime...
I thank you very much. I wonder how you know about me potentially being sysop. I thought you didnot read mailing lists :-). Good evening Martin

At the moment it seems as the anti-semitism article is improving, to a great deal due to your influence. I will with interest follow how long it takes before it detoriates again. ;->>>
-- Ruhrjung 20:32 20 May 2003 (UTC)

I just wanted your opinion, what do you think of the latest clitoris image I uploaded? If the none zoom version better? Should I put it to a vote? MB 02:25 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MartinHarper&oldid=963048"