Wikipedia

MartinHarper

Joined 29 November 2002
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MartinHarper (talk | contribs) at 17:59, 1 May 2003 (add a link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Learn more about this page

Please add talk to the bottom. Old talk will be summarised/deleted 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 untouched to the user's talk page and left unanswered. Or some variation on that.

Unsigned stuff is probably written by me.

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

  • Good rewrite of 'non-sexist' language. JTD 02:51 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)
    • Glad you liked it! :)
  • 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 :)
  • ethical question of those who print discrediting material: important - was it 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. No Dice
    • 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
    • While I enjoy seeing a well-executed troll as much as the next person... ;-)
  • 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 consolodating 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 :)

New Talk

Martin, I don't know who to mention this to, but I just reverted an edit by 62.42.228.6 regarding the United States (see: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=United_States&action=history ) . I thought I should mention this to someone in case they wish to do something about it. Cheers, Sfmontyo

IMO, you did absolutely the right thing: you politely reverted the change, and in the edit summary you clearly explained why you did so. Bravo! If you like, keep an eye on hir contributions to make sure sie doesn't modify any other articles in a wider protest. I expect that, having made the point, sie won't do so again. :) Martin

Thanks for your reply, Martin. I had actually forgotten asking the question! But I have more-or-less satisfactorally (sp!) resolved the matter now: I get first dibs on the reject shots, which is close enough, especially given the convention that we use tiny images here anyway. Cheers -- Tannin

Martin, I can't tell what you are trying to do to the Rachel Corrie images, but you don't appear to be doing it correctly. I think you are a little confused about the image pages. I'll try to explain, sorry if I don't make this clear, it is hard for me to describe the difference between the imagefile on the server, the tag that links to the image, and the page that describes the image.

The server has uploaded images on it, for example there is one at http://www.wikipedia.org/upload/7/7c/Rachelcorrie01.jpg. The page [[Image:Rachelcorrie01.jpg]] that corresponds to the image is intended to describe (and perhaps show) the underlying image. When you do something like insert the tag for [[Image:Rachelcorriemar.jpg]] into the entry for [[Image:Rachelcorrie01.jpg]] you just make things confusing. What you did doesn't change the underlying image, and doesn't change what the [[Image:Rachelcorrie01.jpg]] tag links to, it just makes the page no longer describe the image.

Could you experiment with one or two images before you make the bulk chages that you are currently doing, I really don't think you are accomplishing what you intend to, or at the least you are producing some unintended effects -º¡º

It was deliberate, not accidental. I was linking to a larger version of the same photo. After all, what better way to describe a photo than to show a larger version of it? However, I do see your point, so I'll stick to adding larger version links for now. Martin
Hi Martin. If you are deliberate in what you are doing then I'll just leave you be until you are done. It just looked to me that what you were achieving wasn't what you intended. -º¡º
Nope, you were right Buddha - see Wikipedia:Image use policy - "Don't put rendered images on the description pages; they are for text". I've changed the images to links, as you suggested. I'll sort the text later, when I get a response from the various other people who uploaded the photos as to the copyright status. Martin

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

Martin, you've been a sysop since the day I saw your request. Did I forget to tell you? Hmm! Reminds me of Dorothy and the ruby slippers! --Uncle Ed 22:04 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

I figured it out for myself when I started seeing masses of extra links all over the place! :) Martin

Hi Martin, I've been pondering the died/killed thing in the Rachel Corrie article. The reason I changed it in the first place was that I personally don't think that anywhere in the article it should say that Rachel Corrie was murdered by the Israeli army. I'm well aware of the fact that neither of the sentences, either before or after my change, stated that she was murdered but I felt that saying ..first protestor to be killed.. had too many insinuations of someone having done the killing. I debated this with my sister last night and we went through loads of 'person X was killed/died while in scenario Y' kind of things, never really reaching an agreement (she agreed with you by the way). I think I'd have preferred a different wording like 'first casualty/first fatality' or something but as someone has deleted it it's a bit academic now anyway. (Also, I'd have replied sooner but after we made the small change to Corrie's name in the article my sister managed to make the internet stop working and I've only just worked out what was wrong!) Have fun -- Andrew

Re Jazz Age- Nice! quercus robur 16:54 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC) :)


Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy between the articles on the changes in science and the Aristotle article. We've got a lot of discrepancies in many articles on Wikipedia, and I guess we should expect to see this sort of thing come up from time to time. Due to its briefness, the Aristotle article introduced a rather unfortunate historical anachronism. Basically, the problem is this: Up until 300 years ago, every subject that we call science was subsumed under "Philosophy", specifically "natural philosophy". What we moderns call philosophy was only a small part of this topic! Both Plato and Aristotle (and many after them) discussed scientific topics such as physics, motion, light, etc., and all they called all of these topics "philosophy". To make things worse, they used the term "science" to refer to what we now call "logic". Aristotle never accepted the idea that one should use experiments to learn about reality. He did hold that what we learned from our sense's did tell us something about reality, but that was as far as it went for him...and for everyone after him for 3000 years. It wasn't until the late 1600s that science as we know it today began to develop, when people began testing their ideas with experiments to see if their ideas were valid or not. I rewrote part of the Aristotle article, but not the first article you reverted. I am first waiting to see if anyone jumps in who has more expertise with Aristotle. RK

Sounds like an excellent way of proceeding. :) I'll watch both the articles and see if I can learn something. Thanks for being patient :) Martin
I've reverted myself - I'll leave you and Victor to discuss the issue :) Martin

To say that mathematics was not used in physics in classical antiquity is to overlook the word of Archimedes. Michael Hardy 21:13 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

I just moved content around - I make no warranty as to its accuracy! Please be bold in fixing it. :)

Please make your views known by "voting" at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(slogans). --Uncle Ed 23:51 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

The photos are probably ISM originals that have been widely reproduced. Often the reproducing websites specifically say that the originals are from an "ISM handout".

Cool beans, I hadn't seen any references to anything anywhere. Did you post that information somewhere where other people can find it? ~E

Thanks for pointing out the quote on Noam Chomsky on my user page. --snoyes 00:33 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Martin. No dig was intended re compliment/complement on the Rachel Corrie pics page - I just thought I had better explain what I had done or someone would just go "this %^£%& doesn't know how to spell compliment" and put it straight back ... I hope I did not sound snotty. :) Nevilley 07:25 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)

PS Worcester huh? I have a cousin there ... do you know a lot of vicars???? :)

np - I was busy trying to disagree with feelings of shrinage - so it was a particularly ironic typo!
Vicars... no. Should I? ;-) Martin

Martin,
I moved "Laurent Marie" back to "Laurent, Prince of Belgium" for reasons noted on its talk page. "Marie" is not his surname! -- Someone else 20:30 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

righto. I'd not seen a specific policy on names of royalty written down anywhere - perhaps you could create one at wikipedia:naming conventions (common names), so well-meaning buffoons like myself don't blunder all over the subject! :)

Hi Martin, I've moved Laurent, Prince of Belgium to Prince Laurent of Belgium to follow the naming conventions on royals and titles. I'm afraid personal surnames or indeed personal names are unworkable. There was a long debate on the issue some months ago and so many problems cropped up we had to abandon the issue and stick exclusively with title. For example, people think the Prince of Wales' surname is Windsor. It isn't, it is Mountbatten-Windsor. People think Queen Victoria was Victoria Saxe-Coburg-Gotha; not so, that was the name of the Royal House and Royal Family, but her personal surname was Wettin. Many royals don't have any surname at all (both Charles and Victoria had to have people look into the issue to find out what their surname was!). Technically the Romanovs were even Romanov, though historians can't agree as to what they were.

Even if royals know their own surname or even have one (and many don't). Most people don't know the correct one. Even google searches are useless; a search on the Prince of Wales apparently proves he is Charles Windsor. But when I checked with Buckingham Palace as part of the long debate we were having, they said that was unambiguously and categorically wrong. All children of the Queen are Mountbatten-Windsor since an Order-in-Council changed the name in 1960.

After a long long long discussion on the talk pages and the wiki-list, a consensus was reached on how to name royals and people with titles. It is all listed on the relevant naming convention page. Deb and I pulled it together from all the observations, points and problems people found and had each point discussed and agreed or changed. All royal names were then changed on wiki to match the one basic template, which in effect is

  • all monarchs by title in the form {name} of {state}. (A problem still exists over some far east monarchs but everywhere else the one standard is applied)
  • crown prince/esses by either Crown Prince/ess {name} of {state} unless a specific title exists, in which case it is in the form {name}, {title}
  • Prince/princesses by Prince/ess {name} of {state} unless a clear title exists, as in Andrew, Duke of York

We also went into detail on titles and honorifics (courtesy titles) for non-royals.

Hence that is why I have renamed the page. I agree the naming conventions pages need to be more easily got to. Don't worry. Plenty of people get royal names wrong. A few of us regularly have to correct well meaning mistakes. Slán STÓD/ÉÍRE 21:42 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

Cheers Jtd - at least I'll know for next time :)

Nice work on refactoring the image policy page! :-) --mav

yeah - at some point we need to have that discussion about introducing POV via images... but not today :) Martin

Martin,

Thank you for merging the two Camp X-Ray articles. I had been meaning to get to them for some time, but I just didn't have time to work on them. Thanks again. --Two halves 04:49 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)

No probs. I was half-tempted to merge in Guantanemo Bay (sp?) as well, but I guess it's reasonable to seperate the camp from the place... Martin

Hi Martin, re my fav pop artist... thats a difficult one. My entry on Rachel Corrie was more hypothetical than anything else. I'm a little too varied in music tastes to point at a particular artist. As I age (36 now and counting...) my music tastes have changed dramatically - many songs I liked in my younger years I really can't listen to now as they are (IMHO) rather poor. I was a great Gary Numan fan for example.
I go through phases and am playing John Denver to death - I'll dislike his music in a few months I'm sure........!
F1lby

Martin, it was the other image on the Elizabeth II page that there was a copyright problem over, not the top one. AFAIK the coronation one was fine. It was the Jubilee one at the bottom of the page that had the problem. Tim had already taken it out. Or has some new problem arisen over the previously OK image? STÓD/ÉÍRE 22:38 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

See Image talk:Uk liz2old.jpg for my grovelling apology for having screwed stuff up by deleting at all. Now I must add to that my regrets for incompetently removing the wrong image from the page. Clearly it's too late for my poor little brain to function properly, so I'm going to bed before I do any more damage. You may wish to check my user contributions for similar incompetencies - I'm clearly on a roll tonight... :-( Martin

No prob, Martin. We all have our off days. If Her Majesty knew (as a famed giggler - why is that never reported? Seeing the Queen buckle over in a fit of hysterics is a sight for sore eyes!) she would no doubt be in fits of hysterics. But then she is a regular web surfer so maybe she has already spotted and is roaring with laughter in Windsor right now. Maybe indeed she is already an anonymous wiki user. Who knows? Zoe, perhaps? Maybe Deb? STÓD/ÉÍRE 22:53 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I just noticed my name on your user page (slow, I know). Thanks for the kind words! Regards, sannse 10:44 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

No problem at all, Martin. But as I was saying to someone who had something of theirs listed for deletion, it might be safer to leave it there with the notes making clear that it is now uncontroversial and let someone else remove it during a clean up. The danger with removing something that was once controversial but is no longer, is that if removed you remove the evidence that the problem was solved, and that could lead someone else to get shirty over its removal, or to later on put it back on. But whatever you do you will have my support. ÉÍREman 20:44 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the revertion. ÉÍREman 21:21 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Martin, about the What wikipedia is not article, I don't think it's a good idea to move it to the end, I wanted to list it near "Original research" because they are closely related. Another alternative would be to combine the two, but again.. it doesn't sound right -- Rotem Dan 18:49 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Then I hope you will take it upon yourself to fix every instance when someone has said "see What Wikipedia is not #13". Martin
Ohh good point, damn, I hate this auto-numbering system!!!! :) But then again, it is the same as quoting any wikipedia article, you can never know if the article has been altered or completely re-written. Quoting rule #13 is a very bad practice, but since you claim it's practiced widely I will not argue. Still it's not the bible, you know.. -- Rotem Dan 19:03 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
Indeed not - I've changed it myself a few times, in fact. :) Martin

Martin, I think you should have consulted the WikiEN mailing list before you have reverted the change on What Wikipedia is not. The discussion was about Larry's texts being inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I will not revert this (for now), but I think you should post on the mailing list if you have an objection to this guideline. -- 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".
I did consult the mailing list. What it told me was that there was no consensus on the matter. However, I should have moved it to Talk rather than just deleting. If you have good reasons for this specific rule, add them to the talk page. Copy them from your wikiEN posts if you like. But vaguelly referring to mailing list discussion isn't particular helpful! :)

10x 4 the correction in Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I am new to Wiki - so B pat. It's all 2 fascinating and starnge 4 me User:Dod1 19:25 Apr 20 2003

B pat? 10x4? I'm not hip enough to understand such stuff - explain?? :) Martin

Just a quick note to express my sincere appreciation for all of the hard work that you do to improve the quality of Wikipedia. I, for one, don't know what we would do without you. And I hope we never find out. -- NetEsq 02:58 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! Though you managed fine without me before I came :) Martin
-)

I know. I managed german quite decently. Both german and french languages are very well defined in terms of capitalization and grammar. These types of little fights could not occur. That's the difference between a lively language and an academic one. :-)

Apology accepted. :-) Danny

Cheers :)

Hi Martin. I was working on the duplicate articles page and noticed you'd listed Islands of the North Atlantic and British Isles and was curious; I see that Islands of the North Atlantic and IONA need a merger, was that what you meant? British Isles covers different material in my opinion. - Hephaestos 23:09 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

to quote: "In the context of the Northern Ireland peace process the term "Islands of the North Atlantic" (IONA) has been used as a neutral term to describe these islands."
We should not have two articles for the same set of islands, just because they are referred to using two different names.

Martin

Happy birthday young man ! User:anthere

Actually I forgot to update my home page for too long... :) Martin

when you get older...you even forget how old you are, and need to count...


When you get older still, you forget how to count...

ultimately, it doesnot matter any more. The worms feed on you whatever your age. poussière, tu retourneras poussière...

Martin, why'd you delete my comment at Village pump regarding Zog? Is he/the thought so evil every reference to he/it should be deleted? Or was it just irrelevant? --Geoffrey

Now that he's gone, it seemed doubly irrelevant. Put it back if you think it still needs saying.
See DissuadeReputation for the theory behind these edits... :)

Been snooping around the "What links here", have you? ;) I was thinking to go ahead and unprotect anyway (let's hear it for security through obscurity!), and thanks for the links, though I'd spotted and watched those already, it won't hurt to have them there too. And if you can do a better job than I of sorting out who's who and who's whose, go at it by all means. -- John Owens 08:27 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

links plural? I just added the one... ;-)
Well, you reworded the other to make it clearer, close enough. Another thing I'd been thinking of doing anyway. -- John Owens
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MartinHarper&oldid=879812"