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 Oliver Pereira (talk | contribs) at 20:49, 17 August 2003 (Deletion policy). 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/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. In fact, I might do that to any comment, if I feel it is more appropriately placed elsewhere.

Unsigned stuff is probably written by me.

See also: user talk:MyRedDice/refactoring

Praise for...

Helping my inner glow:

Summarised Talk

  • Welcome! --Camembert
  • Welcome! --Ed Poor
    • thanks to both for making me feel welcome - and to everyone else who said hi elsewhere :)
  • I am sometimes a little bit "facétieuse" User:anthere
    • I shouldn't have reacted so sharply... ;-)
  • "Equal opportunity roasting place" -ROFL 'Vert
    • I enjoy a well-executed troll, but would prefer to avoid seeing one executed
  • 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...

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

  • 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
  • I see you are careful with my complaint on wikipedia:annoying users. In this particular instance, do whatever.Tannin
    • I was picking the low-hanging fruit
  • Sorry about the Firehouse thing --mav
    • totally no worries
  • Do you think Puchland is encyclopedia material?--Eloquence 17:48 15 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm agnostic. There is no Jimbo Wales.
  • Mbecker == MB == Mbecker. MB 00:44 17 May 2003 (UTC)
    • In this particular instance, I was aware.
  • What do you think we should do about the copyright violation in the edit history? Ams80 15:46 18 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Check meta:Wikipedia and copyright issues, about halfway down, which starts "Is it necessary that the copyrighted text entirely disappear [...] or can it stay in the history?". Also, we delete copyright violations for reasons of quality control, not legal paranoia.
  • please undelete the articles on Wikipedia:votes for undeletion. --Anthere
    • Done. Aren't you a sysop?
  • I do not wish to be a sysop and forget my humility. Perhaps in time. -- Anthere
    • You're right: I can summarise that in fifteen words... :)
      • I finally asked to be a sysop. Unhappy. Anthere 05:28 15 Jun 2003 (UTC) (signing for once)
  • Good evening Martin-e. --Anther
    • You mean "Lucinda"... or "Lucy" :)
  • On the French Wikipedia, we look at the "Académie Française" and the "encyclopédie Larousse". On the English Wikipedia, we look at google. In the end, what makes a word or a notion "accepted" on the en, is not its real use but it being known by google. It would be interesting one day to list differences existing between each wiki. When I wrote QoI (oct or november I think), I remember distinctly there were only 3 references in google in french, and say around 20 worldwide for "QoI fungicides". 6 months later, there are about 200. Quite understandable: last fall had the first numerous observations of resistance. --Anthere
  • Stevertigo thinks she's funny... or Borat. In truth, neither ;-)
  • Thanks for your help with Kils/Viking. MB 07:30 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I doubt I was helpful.


  • You helped hook me on wikipedia! Nelson
    • Thanks, skyfaller :)
  • I'm just going nuts seeing the psuedo-scientific, "anti-scientism" and stereotype feeding junk people are putting here. -- Rotem Dan 10:18 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Do you cover the world in leather to make your feet comfortable?
  • I sometimes have the false illusion that no one agrees with me. Rotem Dan 12:15 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Perhaps there are times of openness, such as when flowers want to get fertilized, and times of protection, nurturing the growing fruit ? (anthere)
  • You behaved admirably Oliver. If only every Wikipedian behaved as you do when in a bad mood, then this'd be a nicer place... :)
    • In that case, I'll resist the urge to complain about you not signing the message I'm currently replying to... ;) -- Oliver P. 11:47 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • "Unsigned stuff is probably written by me"
  • Otherwise, it is by me
    • Conversations between Martin and Anthere are my worst nightmare. ;) -- Oliver P. 14:15 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Martin is MyRedDice. :-) Evercat 19:40 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Would that it were that simple...
  • interesting piece you wrote about eventualism v. immediatism LittleDan 00:49 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • An idle piece of whimsy
  • Abusively delete pages... nah, I'll pick u a beer or two (anthere)
    • *giggle* :)
  • yes, of course are we giving you the right to use our images! - Vikings 23:03 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • I love the timeline on User talk:Zoe. It reads like a detective's report on some horrific airplane crash, or something. :-) Evercat 01:38 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)


  • Interesting results! Where is David Dimbleby when you need him? :-) FearÉIREANN 10:08 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Do you have some sort of IM client? --Dante Alighieri 19:33 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Nope
  • observe my edit summaries... Pizza Puzzle
    • Looks good, but [advice]


  • I am fighting against my "judéo chrétienne" education. Elk
    • My response to suffering is more Buddhist in style. Martin 10:05 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • you have been nominated for a more "formal" sysophood. --Dante Alighieri 07:36 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • sweet, but not something I was after.
  • I thought your comment on 2003 in sports was quite funny really. Lisiate 23:13 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • is there really a policy of reverting everything if it's discovered that a user is an alias for a hard-banned user? user:Evercat 23:16 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • GREAT idea - no personal attack. Wikilove. (anthere)
  • Thanks for going through the Village Pump archives and putting comments in context. --Eloquence 19:47 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • we should be able to have articles on dimensionaless orders of magnitude such as 1 E6. The Anome
    • nice idea :) Martin 00:14, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • I need any reference to what guidelines exist on edit wars and page protection. (Anthere)

New talk

yes ! This is it. Kq could not edit my user page, since someone (I do not know who, probably Julie) protected my user page, and Kq is no sysop. I emptied my user page, made the link, then I went to my talk page to remove the comment I wished to put aside on the ban page, then emptied the talk page. When done, I went back to my user page, and the link was not red any more.

You know Martin, my raelien left in disgust. I tried my best to sooth everyone, to bring the antisects back on focus on the topic instead of personal attacks, but...

The article on sect is better than before. We now have a whole bunch of totally biased articles on several sects. And it is again the triumph of the mob, proud of having driven away a necessarily bad (non pc) contributor. There is no such need of being a sysop to do that, just constant poundering on head. And...I would say the very sign that he was a good contributor (not a troll, as some good spirit labelled him) is precisely that he left.

Hi Martin,

I don't know to be honest. I have since stumbled across other DW tracks (in one gem of one he created a new 'character' to come on and defend himself. This 'user' got into a row with someone on a different page and inadvertently signed a DW name instead of their 'new' name, giving the game away!!! The DW-sighting that cropped up over the weekend was on another number I found he had used. It was a false alarm but had looked highly suspicious initially; A DW 'number' going straight to a set of pages DW under a later identity had edited and making edits that were rather too close to DW's past work for comfort. I presumed (as did some others) that the dreaded Troll Master was back but by a fluke it was someone else who just happened to use a DW number and go to former DW pages and none others. So my blocking in that case was a mistake.

I am a bit of a technophobe so I'll leave it up to others to work out what is the state of that original block placed on DW numbers. With a bit of luck he might have gone for good, though I doubt it. lol. (Gotta go back now and finish a newspaper article I was working on. I kinda forgot to go to bed last night so I am kinda tired!) FearÉIREANN 11:29 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I see you have been disambiguating Michael Collins. I don't think you know but [[Michael Collins (revolutionary)]] is actually a redurect page and has been for months. It is now at [[Michael Collins (Irish leader)]] which seemed like a more NPOV title. lol (Jtdirl, I expect)

I haven't done any disambigation of Mr. Collins for months.


Why is Poles a duplicate of Demographics of Poland? --Eloquence 04:55 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I was merging page histories - looks like I mucked it up. Martin

:It's a shame this article has been deleted. :(

Well, you should have voted on VfD then. :-) Evercat 17:24 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I like to rely on everyone else doing the right thing without my input. It normally works. ;-)
I'm not fussed. Just think it was a shame.

By the way, since you're not using sysop powers, I guess you can't read it. I could copy the deleted version to your userspace if you like... Evercat 18:11 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nah - if I stumble across some info that'd make an article worthwhile then I'll list it on VfU. Till then, my userspace has enough junk in it... thanks for the offer, though.

Id like an explanation what is wrong with New Imperialism (temp). Its obvious User:172s criticism of the page is based off his unfounded paranoid hate. Camembert wanted to edit New Imperialism and he said, "Its not worth the trouble" after 172 told him to stop foaming at the mouth. Why is a sysop allowed to go around attacking anyone who disagrees with him? Pizza Puzzle

Treasures abound, as far as the eye can see. Why does the dragon's hoard seem the most attractive?

Dear Martin, Please make new edits to Talk:Daniel C. Boyer and not the old archived page. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:35 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It was old talk. The archive was the appropriate place to put it.

Jtdirl protected New Imperialism, despite being in an edit war there. Both he and 172 have (numerous times now) used their sysop powers to prevent me, and other users, from editing various articles in which Jtdirl and 172 were involved in an edit war. Pizza Puzzle

We have some advice for you on staying cool when the editing gets hot.

Jtdirl has abused his sysop powers. This is a breach of the rules and regulations of the Wikipedia. Pizza Puzzle

Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

The New Imperialism issue is hardly minor. The page is well beyond the limit of 32k and has remained that way for months. 172 abused his powers to prevent me from editing the page at all - if the temp page is not linked at the article - then it will not be visible and, thus, it will not be possible to garner support for the alternate version. My rights were violated by their abuse, I was not allowed to edit the page, I stepped aside and worked on a seperate page, and now they want to hide that -- so that they can continue their iron grip upon the page. Pizza Puzzle

50 bytes out of 50,000 - on one article out of 100,000. It's minor to me.

Martin, I only protected the page temporarily to let the community decide whether in the case where a temp isn't a new communally worked on draft but a rival text, it should be linked. I think it is bad policy for an encyclopædia to do so. Encyclopædias don't publish alternative rival articles, for the very good reason that it makes it look like we are offering an two alternative POVs whereas we should be in the business of one NPOV (possibly with a new communally edited draft being prepared and linked. All I did was ask PP to hold off a while so that the community could think through a policy and its implications. I also increased the visibility of his temp link on the talk page. But having originally agreed to no article link when the temp page solution was proposed, PP backed off and resisted all efforts not to do so yet until people could agree a solution. Otherwise, knowing the history of the page, this row would have gone on for a week with bitter edit wars, then it would move into the next phase and more rows and edit wars. All I was trying to do was kill this row off once and for all. Stop PP's unilateral action until an immediate binding community decision is taken. Once that decision is taken, then there is a common rule which everyone on all sides must follow. The only way to stop this page becoming a nightmare for weeks or longer is at every point of its development to call a temporary halt so that one agreed policy can be reached before moving on to the next of that page's infernal problems. If we all don't begin to get some clear community involvement in decisions there, we'll have you did that! No but you said that! rows there til kingdom come! At least this way this row will end hopefully today will one definitive decision which all sides will have to stick to. FearÉIREANN 15:21 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't question your motives, Jtdirl. I merely point out that your action is at variance with our current recommendations. Perhaps we should review our recommendations? This is something that we can, and should, discuss, in reference to this and other examples.
In other news, you still need to learn to summarise. ;-)

A violation of wiki sysop policy - is a violation no matter how you pretend otherwise. The following comment is a lie, "But having originally agreed to no article link when the temp page solution was proposed, PP backed off and resisted all efforts not to do so" -- it is pointless to make a temp page that cannot be viewed. Pizza Puzzle


I'll try to get a copy of the Zuzu's Place article and send it to you. I'm very curious as to the outcome of this Yoism discussion. Obviously the outcome will effect my opinion of wikipedia, and my continued involvement. So far I feel like a good healthy discussion has ensued, with some minor exceptions (for instance one user stubornly and repeatedly deleting the Yoism content before the conversation really got underway, not sure who). Anyway, if I stay involved, I will certainly put my real name up. OverZealousFan

Look forward to reading it :)
Thanks for your patience. I know from experience that this kind of discussion can be a bit wrenching (I faced similar opposition to my first version of gender-neutral pronoun), so I'm glad that you've remained civil throughout - good for you!

You wanted to see the evidence that Lir and Pizza Puzzle are the same. I'm not the expert on this subject, but I was able to compile this: User:Evercat/PP . It's not quite conclusive. Evercat 01:03, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thank you Evercat. If the subject of banning Pizza Puzzle is raised again on the mailing list I will be able to make a more informed decision than last time.

Updated to add that the university PP posted from yesterday is in Lir's home town. I'm convinced now. Evercat 18:24, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Boyer

I've noticed you editing Daniel C. Boyer, but am a little curious as to why you haven't commented on my calls for its deletion. I know that there has been much debate already about this, but I am still a little confused as to why no one has commented on my reasoning. Btw, I noticed you changed your photo, I was a little confused at first as to why it was so short :). MB 22:02, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)


I don't think I have anything to add to what's already been said, so there didn't seem to be much point.
You're duplicating yourself on VfD and the Village pump, btw. I prefer it if people avoid doing that. Martin 22:54, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I just wanted to inform you that there is an actual vote going on at VfD regarding Daniel C. Boyer. MB 19:20, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

I removed the publisher info from the "tailgating spinster" paragraph on [Daniel C. Boyer|Boyer's page]] for two reasons: 1) it implied a degree of jurying and distribution which, apparently, did not occur, and 2) Boyer is unwilling to provide facts that could be used to clarify the extent of distribution, such as the size of the press run. I still think it should go, unless someone wants to contact the publisher and find out for sure themselves, but I'll wait until the VfD sorts itself out before making any changes. Kat 18:45, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough. I figured that the fact it was sold on e-Bay, and only for one week, would counteract that implication, but I'll bow to your judgement. :) Martin 18:50, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that would be sufficient, but Boyer has claimed that it isn't factual. He has stated that it was sold by other means as well but has not given details. That's why I cut the whole thing. If he attacks the reasonable presumption that we make, and refuses to provide a correct version of the facts with context -- what else are we to do? Kat 19:12, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
We could just ignore him until/unless he provides a correct version. That's what I've been doing. :)
Btw, he said it was misleading, not non-factual. Martin 19:17, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's alright, I'm a bit heated myself the past few days with this Daniel C. Boyer bs. I assume your message was regarding the redirect deletions? BTW, I hope I haven't offended you, I'm just a bit hot headed right now. MB 20:35, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

It was general - I've been behaving like an asshole all over the place, it seems. You haven't offended me, but thanks for the thought. Time to clean up some of my mess, I think. Martin 20:54, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Are there clear rules on deleting redirects (link please). I believe (I haven't read them, so I don't know) that the redirects to Daniel. C Boyer are considered alright to delete, b/c they are not valid redirects.

They used to be just "don't delete valid redirects" (on an older version of deletion policy)... which begged the question of whether they were valid! I would say that they were valid sub-topic redirects, but obviously others disagree. Wikipedia:redirect will have some details, when Daniel Quinlan, me, and others figure them out. This may take some time, though - but I'd appreciate your help.

For future reference, I look at my user page for reply's to my messages. It's more logic IMHO. MB 20:58, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to keep discussion threads together, so that other people can follow them. If you don't reply I'll assume you missed it and drop you a note :)
Re: misrepresentation over Boyer -- No problem, never thought there was malice involved -- GWO

Where did you move the tillwe discussion? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:38, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Speakers for WOS3

We're currently looking for speakers for the next Wizards of OS conference in Berlin, in April 2004. I will moderate a panel on collaborative writing projects, and was wondering whether you could recommend someone who is/was highly involved with the H2G2 project, or whether you would be willing to talk about it, and the differences to Wikipedia, yourself? Thanks.—Eloquence 20:11, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

Yer more Boyer

I understand that what you are arguing about, but not why you are arguing? The fact is, we are talking about why or why not the Boyer page should be deleted. There are a number of undisputed reasons for it deletion, not the least of which is the vote, which is currently 9 for deletion, 5 for keep, 5 undecided. I hope you can agree that it is a little bit of a waste of time to be arguing about it's deletion, when it is pretty obvious that it will be deleted. If you want it to not be deleted, I suggest you start posting reasons why it should stay. I think the reasons for deletion far outweigh reasons for keeping. MB 21:47, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

I've already posted such reasons. They're now in the talk archives, along with Tim's. Martin 22:17, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Martin, if you feel the page belongs, why don't you just unblank those portions that you feel are verified? We have nothing to go on for most of this other than Boyer-based sources. No independent verification that either of the films actually exist, that the photo is of him, that the poster he and his sister made ever existed. The only two items *I* could verify at all were the self-published book of poems distributed by Black Swan, and the chapbook of 15 copies sold that Snyder could vouch for. The rest we are taking on faith from Boyer himself and he has not shown himself to be a reliable source. Now, I didn't feel that the two books by themselves were grounds for an article, but I suppose I could concede that for the time being. Kat 22:33, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've blanked stuff that I've tried to verify and failed. Stuff that remains is stuff I've not got round to trying to verify yet, or stuff I've verified OK.
The article, like all articles in Wikipedia, is a work in progress. Relax. Martin 23:12, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Hi,

Why the move of Wikiquote to Wikipedia: namespace ? I think this is a legitimate article like all others. Following this policy I think we ought to move Wikipedia article to Wikipedia: namespace, right ?
Kpjas 23:04, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'll reply on the talk page. Martin 23:12, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You missed the point, but a redirect is a great idea. Unfortunately, someone else beat me to it on Boyer's page. Kat 23:30, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Your point is that if Boyer has an article, why can't you, I would guess?
I have my reasons. I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned them in the talk archives. In time, I'll get round to refactoring them to make the situation cleared. But there's no rush. Martin
If I must spell it all out for you, the page was patent nonsense, Martin. Just like much of Boyer's. All very plausible but impossible to verify. Even the name isn't my real name. It's already on VfD and I'll add a comment later clarifying the rhetorical intent (only) of the page so it can be deleted. And that's that, I'm recusing myself from the whole embroglio at this point. Best regards, Kat 23:51, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Interesting.

Why do you insist on moving my comments, and only my comments, from your talk page? This is very insulting. 172 15:28, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

172 - look two lines above. I just moved Evercat's comment to User talk:Evercat/PP. I've also just moved one of Jtdirl's comment to the talk page of STV, moved an old unanswered question to user talk:Evercat and given a belated reply. I do this all the time, and I'm not targetting you here.
In this case, I thought your reasons were of general interest to readers of talk:New Imperialism, and specifically Graculus, so I moved them there. That way, people can follow the thread of these things easily, without wandering around talk pages.
I know that you didn't like my editing of user talk:Angela, and I am sorry for upsetting you. However, I felt, and still feel, that this kind of cut-and-paste crossposting is spam, and not appropriate. Can you understand why I feel that? Martin 16:14, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean to ask about the AIDS slogan page, but I expressed my opinion about it already and it hasn't changed. Koyaanis Qatsi 19:24, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

ok.
You know, that sounds terse to the point of being rude--not your comment, mine. That wasn't the intention, though it was nonetheless the result. Koyaanis Qatsi 21:39, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I was wondering... ;-) Thanks for clearing it up.

Martin, what after all was the resolution to the AKFD nonsense? -戴&#30505sv 21:02, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

Resolution? You're thinking of some other community... ;-)

I'm sorry, I didn't know that there was going to be an additional vote. I don't see why we need one, though. That vote was pertaining to temp 5 beccause that's what temp 4 redirected to.LDan 16:45, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's not compulsorary, but that way it'll be less controversial than the fait accompli the Temp1 folks presented us with. I'm glad you like it :)

Hi, what's all this with wiki-wolves lately? I don't get it. Email me if you'd prefer. Koyaanis Qatsi 21:31, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It was just a metaphor for the folks who like to devour thinks on Wikipedia. I do plenty of devouring myself at times. Unverifiable - chomp! biased - chomp! needs a reference - chomp!
Hey, it wasn't serious :)

welcome boilerplate?

Hi, do you know where the welcome boilerplate is? Or could you send one to user:61.200.105.42--s/he had an implied question about editing. Best, Koyaanis Qatsi 09:49, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Standard user greeting?

Message from the legion of trolls

How could you possibly know what was written by a "banned user"? That term is epistemologically confused. Try not to bring the MeatballWiki disease here.  ;-)

The m:Legion of trolls requests your attention to m:Wikimedia press release policy. It needs attention from those who might understand the way things work around here, and who's trying to take control of what, and why.

m:The ideal Wikipedia board, m:Wikipedia3 and m:Wikipedia4 are all issues of process that will have to be settled eventually, preferably, before there is a public commitment to any particular position on m:governance or software. Any such statement in a press release, that will bind a m:board that doesn't exist yet, should be very heavily critiqued.

The future of the project is being settled by those who write press releases. Once a certain image of it is "out there", well, it's quite hard to change.

Fair warning? 142.177.etc

No, it wasn't, but I did't want to give the article's subject an opening to say that I was removing material unfavorable to myself. Kat 20:20, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I posted this at Wikipedia talk:Sites that use Wikipedia for content but you didn't respond, so I am posting it here:

I've made a few changes to Wikipedia:Copyrights in anticipation of updating our copyright notice on the bottom of the page. I purpose that the new notice read "All text is available under the terms of the GFDL. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for details." Right now the link at the bottom links to a page which redirects to Wikipedia:Copyrights, but being that the GFDL is intimidating to most to read, people are less likely to click on the current link and read the terms of copying.

I would like some feedback before purposing this on the mailing lists. Thanks. (Please post replies to my talk page) MB 18:02, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

Martin,

I have summarized much of the discussion on Boyer and on the "Criteria for Inclusion of Biographies" page, but more needs to be done in order for there to be a conversation that people can follow. Too, the other policy pages under development (autobiography, verification) need summarizing. Not much fun I know, but I'm asking if you could help with that. I don't want to be the only one doing it.

I have thought a lot about some of your points on these topics. I can appreciate your concern about the subjectivity of relevance tests, and agree that the emphasis on commercial sales may be misplaced.

I wonder if one of the criteria for an article to be present (biographical or otherwise) should be that the content of the article can be verified using the resources present in a good library. An encyclopedic work should not contain primary source materials, and I believe we've been over that ground already. And any bit of knowledge not already present in the collection of an appropriate library is probably obscure enoguh that an article about it constitutes original research or reportage.

Not sure what a "good library" would mean. In some cases a specialist library might be most relevant, such as the music library at a college, or a medical library, or an engineering library.

--Kat 18:14, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I wonder how many Wikipedians know there is a vote going on.

It was advertised at the village pump, on recent changes, on wikipedia:list of ongoing votes, and on some relevant talk pages... but there's a limit to how much you can advertise before it's spam. :-/ Do you have any suggestions? Martin

My first reaction was 'the discussion page for the Main Page', but I checked and its been there all along. I must have missed it, although it is on my watch list. Still if I missed it many others will have too (I'm pretty much a wikiholic, though my attention is divided between en: and nl:). Its hard to keep track of everything thats going on. I follow Wikipedia-l and Wikitech daily, started to follow Village pump recently. Maybe the logo contest is a good example, that one is very hard to miss. It was on the announcements page as well. I agree that not every discussion that turns into a vote should be announced there or even shown prominently on the main page, but I think many people are interested in the content and layout of the Main Page (which is shown by the number of voters that did indeed find their way to your page), so maybe worth an announcement after all? Erik Zachte 10:44, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

When () comes back I want to nominate him for sysop (for real this time) I dont ask for much, but I ask that you support his nomination. Sincerely-戴&#30505sv 22:52, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

Undeletion

I undeleted Adolf Hitlier as you requested. There doesn't seem to be anything in the history but redirects. Do you want it redeleted? Angela 23:21, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You should probably list it on wikipedia:votes for deletion regardless. Personally, I like it as a redirect. Martin 23:32, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Posting of invariant sections under GNU FDL

Martin, regarding your comment on my talk page, I think we have stumbed on a topic that should be discussed a bit more. There really isn't any way to mark invariant sections if people give licences with them; should they put that in the text? I do not think so, I do not think they grant a GNU FDL license to Wikipedia. Quite frankly I think that there is any implication that the grant of license that is given to Wikipedia is larger than the GNU FDL, it is really a non-exclusive licence to the Wikipedia community which includes a lesser license to allow any third party to use it under the FSF's GNU FDL. This distinction seems rather tricky to me and hard to explain (the person gives the material to Wikipedia for "merciless editing" — the invariant section condition of GNU FDL is really incompatible with such a concept as it states that if the author declares any section as invariant then it cannot be edited. In terms of legal text the statement "all contributions to Wikipedia are considered to be released under GNU..." covers the release of the material. The second sentence on the editing page is really dealing with a the license to Wikipedia — and now Wikimedia Foundation Inc., it should be specifically mentioned at the bottom of each edit page. IMHO I suggest that might be changed as follows:

Please note that all contributions made on any edit page are released to the general public under the GNU Free Documentation Licnse (see [[Wikipedia: Copyrights]] for details. By submitting text here, you are granting Wikimedia Foundation Inc., and all subsidiary Wikimedia projects a non-exclusive license to all your work submitted on Wikimedia projects. Your writing may be edited mercilessly by any subsequent viewers. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, DO NOT submit it here.''
Your submission here must be written by yourself, in the public domain or from a similar copyright free source or it will be removed. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!

Where do you think such a discussion should be held? On the Wikipedia:Copyrights talk page, on the mailing list? Alex756

Deletion policy

Mr. Dice, you are required at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. I'm a bit confused about one of your changes to the policy page... By the way, sorry about my rudeness to you over the issue of moving the Daniel C. Boyer page recently. (I am right, though!) I seem to be in a being-rude-to-other-sysops mood at the moment. Accusing them of abuses of power all over the place. It's quite fun at times, but I really should snap out of it. Possibly. Anyway. Deletion policy. Confusion. Might need changing. Not sure. Help? -- Oliver P. 20:49, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MartinHarper&oldid=1306903"