Jump to content

User talk:MartinHarper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MartinHarper (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 27 February 2003 (What vote did I vandalise, exactly?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Summarised Talk

  • Welcome! --Camembert
  • Welcome! --Ed Poor
    • thanks to both for making me feel welcome - and to everyone else who said hi elsewhere :) Martin
  • 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 :) Martin

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)
  • Are you serious about the "most embarrasing thing sent to my work"? (anon)
    • Vaguely not-terribly serious. Martin
  • Sorry to give offence. Two16

New Talk

Martin, I think the ethical question of those who print material intended to discredit others, should as you suggested, focus on whether (a) they sincerely believed the material to be authentic, (b) knew it was false , or (c) didn't care whether it was true or false. In case A, there's at least a CHANCE that they were honestly trying to warn people of a danger (even though the danger in hindsight turned out to be illusory) -- while in cases B and C they were simply "out to get those guys". Unfortunately, it is very difficult to determine whether someone was sincerely deluded, knew better, or just didn't care. (Reminds me of all those people who "warned" me about "Moonie brainwashing" 25 years ago, when I first joined the Unification Church.) --Uncle Ed

You missed D - believing material to be true, but only having that belief because one is blinded by one's prejudices. But yeah, it's probably another insoluble mystery of history - I hate those.
Fortunately, Moonie scares happened before I was born, so any antipathy I feel towards you is just my normal anti-Christianity showing through rather than anything more specific... ;-) Actually, as someone who generally judges religions by the actions of their adherents, you've done the image of the UC in my mind no end of good. :) Martin

Talk with Mintguy moved to talk:list of people by nationality

Hi, I was just wondering why you redirected Potiphar to Joseph (dreamer). I tend to think that pages that redirect have equivalent meaning, especially in the case of people. When I followed the link I assumed that Potiphar was a name for Joseph in another language and only on reading some of the article did I realise that this was wrong. Do you think maybe it needs something near the top explaining to someone just browsing that Potiphar isn't Joseph? - Ams80

I see what you mean. I was just merging the articles because I thought that Potiphar could never be more than a stub, but perhaps a better intro would be in order? Martin

You might want to move your List_of_Gnostics to the Gnostic Article. BF

Oh, ok. Martin


I'm not trying to have a go at you, but just pointing out that you caused a lot of fuss by moving list of famous football players. I'm sorry. Mintguy

hmm - I see moving doesn't add you to the watchlist for an article. Sorry to have caused you and t'other folks so much bother. The changes to the by belief articles seemed to go down OK, so I think I may have gotten overconfident. Oops. Martin

You were quite right, Martin, to make the move. A number of people were already bothered by the title. Mintguy keeps referring to goggle searches as 'evidence' for how football means association football (aka soccer). So I did a goggle search and found American football, rubgy football, gaelic football, Australian rules football etc all thrown up as football. It is important to get things right. And football for soccer/association football simply isn't right. Though poor mintguy isn't one bit happy, especially when everyone has told him he is wrong and the page cannot simply be described as 'football'. JTD 23:38 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

It's not a case of right and wrong - disambiguation/redirecting frequently gives rise to difficult questions that don't really have perfect solutions. Clearly the problem is our use of the English language - I blame the Britons... ;-) Martin

Hello...I fear I am sometimes a little bit "facétieuse" (hum, that basically mean impulsive and playful) ;-) User:anthere

Fair enough. I shouldn't have reacted so sharply probably... ;-)

Thanks for all the assistance Martin. I sent you an email. No Dice

Thanks for the mail :) Can't respond at the mo - no email access - but I'll get back to you next week I hope... Martin

Hi RD, I see you have done a redirect from the Anti-Pope Gregory XVII page. When I was doing the Greg XVII page I was dogged tired and accidentially screwed up, twice. There is a correct redirect at Antipope Gregory XVII which I deliberately set up. I put the two screw-ups on the deletion page; they aren't linked to anything, either external or internal on Wiki (apart from your redirect) and I thought it would pointless to have 3 almost identifical versions of his name as redirects. JTD

It's certainly plausible that someone might type Anti-Pope Gregory XVII in the hope that it would go somewhere or do a search on "Anti-Pope Gregory" . Unlikely perhaps, but not impossible. Hence, it makes sense to me to keep them... *shrug* Martin

Thanks for adding the appropriate credits to the resized Peacock picture! I'll be sure to do it next time (and there's going to be a lot of opportunity - a lot of the resizings are of awful quality) --snoyes 17:02 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

no probs :) Martin
Hi, would you mind just quickly checking out the difference in quality between the two resized peacock images on my talk page, I'd quite like to get confirmation from someone before uploading my resizings of most of Arpingstone's other pics. Thanks, snoyes 18:49 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Don't agree that the current version of Dissociative identity disorder is better than the previous one. It's far too uncritical and glosses over the history of MPD, and esp. over the mechanisms of suggestion that were used to create it. Reads like it could be published on a DID/MPD site. Will have to rewrite/reintegrate deleted facts for NPOV. --Eloquence

Well I still think it was better, though not perfect. However, I see your point about NPOV concerns, so I've readded some of the deleted material. I think I was blinded somewhat by my own POV, which is of anti-psychiatry but accepting the existence of something. Martin
I'm afraid the article gives the following impression to readers not familiar with the subject: "So, MPD was a hoax, but they're not willing to admit it. Now it's a lifestyle choice." MPD is a mental illness with a specific etiology. It can be created in childhood through negligence (imaginary friends => personalities), and at all ages through (self-)suggestion. The role of victim and the convenience of being able to blame unwanted behavior on other "personalities" make the disorder an attractive one. Multiple personalities, at least in Germany, still claim to be victims of severe ritual abuse. That MPD as a modern mass phenomenon is the result of psychotherapeutic abuse has been largely ignored, except by the courts. Many of the responsible therapists are still practicing. This history of abuse by therapists needs to be documented. --Eloquence 15:54 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

"Equal opportunity roasting place" -ROFL - hes probably doing a little roasting as we speak... Its been a while since Ive seen him steamed... hes keeping a civil tongue these days, I think. -'Vert

While I enjoy seeing a well-executed troll as much as the next person :) it's probably not very productive in the context of wikipedia... even if RK's responses make it tempting at times. Perhaps you could help me by compiling a list of positive portrayals of Jews in the New Testament? I know there are some... :) Martin

If you do not agree with the outcome of a vote, please state why. Vandalizing the vote is not acceptable. Susan Mason

What vote did I vandalise, exactly?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MartinHarper&oldid=707620"