User talk:MartinDK/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Original research in Carousel 2 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatisation 3 Your Turn 4 Janicism 5 Notability 6 Re: Deletion of the big-busted Playmate list 7 Happy Holidays and Happy New Year 8 ED 9 Thanks for assist 10 Cindery 11 NPWatcher

Original research in Carousel

Note also that someone else came up with an explanation of the source of the material in question at talk:Carousel. Fourohfour 13:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I know, I read the talk page and checked Google several times before I removed it. The editor you are talking about says that he believes it was copied from the book. That by itself was enough for me to remove it. He also said that the tone of the introduction was nostalgic. Unless someone comes forward at explicitly say they have read the book and that the passage isn't copyvio I will not reinsert it. Written sources are usually very reliable compared to web pages but since they are also that much harder to verify we need to be careful when someone says it is plagiarized. MartinDK 15:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatisation

Hi MartinDK, just a quick note to express my appreciation for taking the time to explain the difference in policies. You were right in that I meant WP#NotBattleground when talking about WP:POINT.

Cheers, iruka 05:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks, it was no big deal. Also, I forgot to tell you that you are of course free to move the article if you feel that the title is POV. Also you can do an entire rewrite if you feel like it. There is a lot you can do without having to ask anyone for permission to do so. Best of luck with the article, I am sure that with your commitment to the subject you will be able to turn it into a more informative and balanced article. Cheers, MartinDK 07:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Turn

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Long_Island_Music_Hall_of_Fame - While I think the nomination section can be better presented, the article is in much better shape. *Spark* 21:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

I replied on the AfD. It looks much better now thanks so it was time for me to fulfill my part of the agreement. Changed it to keep now. I'm busy with another article that needed total reworking to avoid deletion but I will keep this one on my watch list. Cheers and thanks again! MartinDK 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Janicism

They've posted up their newspaper article on the Janicism page. I'm disappointed, given the time taken surely they could have created something better! WJBscribe 13:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! I am still looking forward to the video. Seriously, how can anyone post this

The Touching of the Vegetables

When a baby is born, a Chief Janni comes to the family with a basket of assorted vegetables. He touches the baby's head with the vegetables, and the family then rejoice in the fact that a new baby has entered the community. They then eat the vegetables.

and still think they are going to be taken seriously? MartinDK 13:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may throw my two cents in, my favorite part is the blogspot page, which was obviously created in the past few hours, followed by the comment, "So what if its not reliable, its a source." -- Kicking222 13:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I know! Especially when you consider the fact that this kid didn't even know that the time was going to be printed on the blog entries. Also, have you tried looking up random sections of the blog on Google? MartinDK 14:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to pre-empt whatever the Janicist lobby will come up with in the way of video evidence of these book burning ceremonies.... Do you think this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR07cIS-7-4 may be a Janicist festival? It seems to have the right level of attendance (and professionalism)... WJBscribe 16:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ROFL I think that might be as close as we are going to get to one. This might be a notable religion... like notable on the local street for starting small fires... the good thing is that this kid is getting annoyed at me... We must be doing the right thing then!MartinDK 16:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And now they've resorted to vandalising our user pages. Wow- it seems religious extremists come in all guises (including those who worship prophets of Nutrition, Geometry and Anatomy apparently). Good to know we're getting to them :). WJBscribe 19:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't think about it, I reported it on IRC MartinDK 19:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Sorry if this is not proper form; I am new to editing. I wanted to ask about this: "We are not a collection of every local fact known to mankind."

I heard someone say that Wikipedia was an attempt to amass the sum of all human knowledge. I had thought that was from Wikipedia itself, but now I think it was probably just some sloppy journalism I read somewhere. Is that Wikipedia's goal, implied goal, eventual aim, or even part of Wikipedia's underlying philosophy?

I can understand not wanting to have articles on every silly fact about someone's local high school, but why is there such a focus on notability? For example, in the article about the Tamir author Subrabharathimanian, it's suggested for deletion because he and his book aren't well known in English-speaking countries. Does/Would it hurt to have every little fact in the world available, and let the reader decide whether he's interested or not? Or is the problem that it would fill the encyclopedia with enormous amounts of minutiae, and lower the quality of the encyclopedia's "average article?" Also it could burden the servers, and take time away from users and admins which could be better used on more valuable articles? Tragic romance 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me answer that one bit at a time. You are asking some big questions here. First of all Wikipedia is not a project to sum up all knowledge known to mankind. It is an attempt at building an encyclopedia free for everyone to read and edit. But it is still an encyclopedia and every encyclopedia needs to set guidelines to determine what gets to styay and what doesn't.

It is right that Wikipedia would not suffer from having the article you mention. The servers won't die because of it. In some ways Wikipedia isn't not a normal encyclopedia. We have articles on every Simpsons episode etc. The problem with this particular article is that he is locally notable. In such situations we need to determine if the article would be better suited for the local version of Wikipedia and not the English one. In this case there is a local Wikipedia that could be used instead. The article belongs there instead where it will most certainly be considered notable and where the people editing the Wiki have better chances of verifying the information using reliable sources rather than the editors themselves. Remember that the criterion is always verifiability and not truth and editors cannot act as reliable sources themselves. MartinDK 17:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of the big-busted Playmate list

I sincerely apologise if I have hurt your feelings. I guess, my choice of words or my way of argument is not very friendly. But since you've decided to raise questions about the integrity of my poor self (as well as the wonderful prject of WP), I should put forward some explanation to you:

• Apart from writing These nay-sayers are disgusting, I made no personal attack. Can you please refer to any personal attack I made? (Before you do so, please go through the policy page titles Wikipedia:No personal attacks, as well as the article on Ad hominem)
• Understand, please, that your last comment is an out and out slander and is definitely a personal attack. Not warranted I should say.
• Quoting someone to provide inconsistencies in argument is not personal attack.
• Using the same argumentative techniques of the opposition (like repeating an unexplained reason - It's trivial) is not personal attack.
• Reffering to research material is not personal attack.
• Tone of voice is not necessesarily personal attack. Please, understand that you first short comment probably had more personal attack than my lengthy one.
• And, you didn't have to bring in another Wikipedian in you opposition to me. That person is not responsible for not one word I wrote.

I really am sorry to hurt your feelings, but not the person I quoted. Strong argumentative techniques invariably gets the same thrown back at us. Thanks for your concern and thanks for letting it be known. I wish you could keep it a little less personal. - Aditya Kabir 17:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK let's just leave at that then. I suggest you look here for a look at how my comments should have been percieved. I wasn't slandering anyone, I was making a point about what Wikipedia is and isn't. You called other people's arguments disgusting and mentally challenged. That was uncalled for and offensive to me. I will not make anymore comments on the AfD anyway so let's leave it at that. Sincere apologies for not staying cool and a merry X-mas to you and your family, MartinDK 17:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year

WoW! I must say, you are one user who can make a difference on Wikipedia. I thank you SINCERELY, for being an ANGEL. Not because I think that you are on my side, but you calmly take a situation and try to resolve it without being the bad guy. You are all knowing and yet very humble in your ways. If only every "wikipedian" user can follow your lead, you will have less "newbies" like me getting frustrated over a series of events.

Had someone actually guided me and basically held my hand when I first came on board, my reactions wouldn't sound like I'm yelling. I'm really not yelling, it may look like it but I'm not. The word "frustration" is a better desrciption of how I felt/feel each time someone bombard's and slaps me with 50 different reasons why I can't do what I'm doing, but rather, they should be helping and explaining in details that one can understand the "No's", and "why's", "why not's", and give a solution and show what I can do. I can respond better to a "positive" behaviour feedback instead of a negative one.

So, rather than hashing and re-hashing over and over the "could've, and would'ves", let's get on with a positive NEW YEAR!

For starters, ADOPT me PLEASE! (hee hee) I'd love for you to be my mentor and help me to be a humble wikipedian like yourself.

Regarding the link stuff, I can't remember who, but someone told me that since the article I was writing is about bloodless bullfights, then my site was ok to include as an external link. What I've been trying to do is link directly to a page on my site that relates to what I'm talking about... for example, the Cavaleiros, the Forcados, etc. There really isn't a true resource for what I'm trying to put together, that's why it may sound like a "self-promotion". Until I came around, there was no site that has an extense amount of information relating to bloodless bullfights until I came along... really. I see and realize now that I shouldn't be too informative on Wikipedia and put most of my work on my site. And we just won't even talk about that other site who is ferociously competing with me, which is one of the reasons why this whole thing got escalated.

Anyway, I would like help on the Bloodless bullfighting article, along with the other ones I've created. On the Bloodless Bullfighting, I've decided that I would rather have all of that on my site (which I've already put it there), because then I can write from our own experiences, while including other views... then I won't run into something telling me how to write on my own site.

I would like to keep it simple but to the point and would like it to direct them to my site for additional information.... like link to my FAQ/411 on Bullfighting pages. My link is no different from that of the links on the "Lusitano" and "Bullfighting pages (just as an example).

I am actually in the middle of creating a different website that does not focus on our horses. Because people tend to pick and choose instead of realizing that our current site does focus mainly on the art of bloodless bullfights and shows mainly videos of all the events. And I don't even know how it could be considered a self-promotion when these events aren't even mine. They are held and promoted by the Festa organizations themselves. It just so happen that it has our horses in it.

Anyway, this message is getting quite lengthy and I don't want to ruin another day because of Wikipedia stuff.

Hope you have a great holiday break with your family and be sure to eat lots of goodies and enjoy the festivities. And a very Happy New Year to you too! Looking forward to your helpful expertise in the New Year!

Maraming Salamat! Muito Obrigado! Muchos Gracias! 谢谢各位! Grazie molto! Maligayang Pasko! Boas festas! ¡Buenas fiestas! 节日愉快! Feste felici! Thank you very much and Happy Holidays in all 5 languages that's part of my lineage (not in any order). Yeah, I know... I'm a certified mutt. =) Sincerely, --Webmistress Diva 15:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you so much for that, that was very very nice of you to say. First of all I see that Fethers posted on your talk page like I asked if he would. You should listen to his advice because what he wrote there is absolutely true. I have also posted a reply on the Bloodless Bullfighting talk page tonight. Like Metros says this can be solved quite easily without any further problems. And you don't have to be concerned that someone is just going to copy your pictures and use them elsewhere. The license protects you in that regard. As for the editing of pictures then yes... he can do so in the same way as editing an article. In other words as long as what he does is an improvement like removing text that you would not normally have on a picture in an encyclopedia. And even then you still get to credit yourself/the photographer on the Commons page with the picture and license. No one is taking that away from you at all. So I really suggest that you use the GFDL as license and then ask the photographer to upload the picture. If the picture is used on your website you can even provide a link to that on the picture page at Commons if you want to. Both Fethers, Metros and I are trying to help you right now.

Anyway, that's enough talk about pictures for tonight. I really hope you and your family have a fantastic Christmas and the very best New Year. I really look forward to helping you in the new year! If you need help with the signature thing just ask sometime tommorrow and I will help you with that.

Cheers and happy holidays, god jul (Danish hi hi) MartinDK 23:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

ED

Martin, the ED editors are all a bunch of children. the best way to handle misbehaving children is to ignore them. In my case, this is generally easy until one of them shows up and starts stalking my edits. However, they have almost no factual info on me on that website...but many users here have been positively identified and those same articles also state that said person is a criminal or similar things along those lines. For ED, these people are the ones that they should be concerned about...but I am generally their target here since I am supposedly credited with being the driving force that resulted in the ED article being deleted here. I'm flattered that I have such a huge fan club that they even chat about MONGO all over that website, even recently on the MONGO article talk page there. It's good to be the king!--MONGO 08:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for assist

Appreciate you reverting the crude vandalism on my Userpage....goes with the territory I suppose, but I had to be away from PC when he hit me twice in response to warningHJ 03:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just happy to help out! I know what you are talking about - my own userpage is now semi-protected after I was hit by vandals over 9 times in as many days. The more agressive you are towards vandalism and trolling the more agressive they get when vandalizing your userpage. That just means you are doing a good job though. Like MONGO says it is good to be king! MartinDK 08:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Cindery

I don't think we need Jimbo's intervention here, just an uninvolved admin to make a block based on Cindery's actions on Wikipedia, providing diffs, and willing to retreat if they're shown to be wrong. Sir Nicholas and Samir fail on all three counts, though. Argyriou (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I truly do hope that you are right about that. However, the accusations being thrown around now are very serious, bordering the potentially libel. If you can find an uninvolved admin who is willing to look into it and settle it based on our usual criterias rather than what has been presented at ANI it would be great. My intention is not to choose sides but to make sure that the issue is settled properly and not based on emotions and bad feelings from past disputes. If Cindery is indef banned based on the evidence presented so far it will be all too easy to take this to ArbCom and the whole situation from Nick's RfC might explode again. Neither side in this dispute really has any interest in that. That is my main concern. Well, that and making sure that Cindery gets a chance to defend herself. As for the ED articles I think my feelings about that are pretty obvious. MartinDK 22:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

An admin not as lazy and full of himself as Sir Nicholas or Samir would easily be able to find enough on-wiki evidence to support an indefinite block which would be relatively uncontroversial. I'll be a little bit sorry to see her go, but she really doesn't seem able to stay out of an argument, to the detriment of her editing. Argyriou (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the main problem. According to her block log Sir Nick blocked her entirely based on Samir's claim of her being responsible for his alleged death threats. I have noticed how she seems completely unable to withdraw from an argument or stop accusing editors of stalking etc. when faced with evidence that clearly debunks her arguments. But she has already been blocked for those things. This particular block is based entirely on Samir's account of what happened and some to be honest weak "evidence" that she has been editing ED. However, judging from the activity over there it would appear as though someone with a grudge against Sir Nick/Samir/Guy is editing quite actively there at the moment. MartinDK 00:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So she's banned. I think. WP:BLOCK#Bans says something to the effect of Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users. Was that present? Or is she still just indefinitely blocked? The block log does not state "Community banned" as required by WP:BLOCK. Or is htis just another example of Sir Nick and Samir's ignoring of process? Argyriou (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

According to The list of banned users she was banned for Wikistalking and off-site stalking of Samir. As for the on-wiki stalking there might be a bit of truth to that to be honest. But none of the allegations put forward at ANI were actually proved. Perhaps there was a form of consensus but there were also objections which Sir Nick called feeding the trolls. Blatant incivility. He also reffered to his RfC as "futile disruption". That makes me think that he honestly did this as revenge and that the block was punitive rather than preventive. In addition to that he used the fact that Cindery had opposed Kuntan's block as a reason to ban her ?!?! There was no proof of Cindery having done anything wrong after her last block had expired. Shortly after that he had fellow admin Rama's arrow simply close the debate and banning Cindery. I would say that the way this was done was out of process. There has been some discussion about community bans lately on the talk page of WP:BAN. Some users seem to agree that community bans can be directly appealed to ArbCom which is exactly what I feared would come out of this. If that happens then the whole debate about Sir Nick's RfC will resurface. To be honest I think Sir Nick just has too many friends to back him up here. Anyone who dares to question his actions end up being banned from Wikipedia. He is the kind of admin that frankly makes normal editors feel very unwelcome. Apparently the admins are running the show or so he would like it to be anyway. I don't trust the guy anymore. Sometimes admins need to make unpopular decisions like deleting an article because it violates policy. That's what we have deletion review for, to examine such situations and debate then thoroughly. But this was entirely punitive and when people started questioning the legality of his allegations he just fired at everything he could find. MartinDK 07:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out User:Jesse Viviano's description of the community ban. I edited it back a lot to clean it up. Argyriou (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And he changed it back now! This seems very personal to him. I wonder when he will start accusing people of futile disruption for removing obviously libel unproven statements. Who died and made him the FBI? MartinDK 16:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This may be of interest. MastCell 01:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nicely spotted MastCell. Block evasion is obnoxious. I don't think any of us dispute that she should be blocked.

This thread is about the major leap between rightly blocking someone for incivility, onwiki stalking and abuse of sockpuppets and then real life death threats. Sir Nick could easily have blocked Cindery for good had he bothered to look up any of the truckload of diffs that could be used to do that. She has evaded blocks using socks before. The problem is that there is a hell of a difference between disputes on a wiki and accusing someone of making real life death threats. Suchs acts are covered not by Wikipedia policies but by the law. Wikipedia is not a state within the state. If Samir recieved phonecalls at work and if Sir Nick has proof that Cindery made those or are involved at some level in what has happened to Samir then it should be turned over to the police and handled as a criminal case, not a thread on ANI. Also, I still wonder how someone can recieve death threats at a hospital and then nothing happens after that. If I recieved death threats at work the matter would be turned over to the police automatically not matter what. I'm not saying it didn't happen, not at all, but I think it has been horribly handled. A community ban would not stop someone from making threats in real life - and apparently it isn't stopping Cindery from coming here either. MartinDK 14:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

NPWatcher

You've been approved to use NPWatcher. Please give Martinp23 any feature requests or bugs. He'll also happy to help if you have any problems running the program, or any questions :). Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if he's made a new release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Finally, enjoy! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)