User talk:Martin451

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Barnstar of Reversion2.png The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I, Mikhailov Kusserow, hereby award Martin451 with The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for reverting vandalism to my talk page. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your remarks concerning terrorist related media[edit]

In Talk:James Foley (journalist) you made the remark:

Forget copyright. If this is a torrent of the video, then clicking on that link will download it, it will also upload it to others. In the UK this is illegal under anti-terrorism legislation [35]The force said in a statement: "The MPS counter-terrorism command (SO15) is investigating the contents of the video that was posted online in relation to the alleged murder of James Foley. We would like to remind the public that viewing, downloading or disseminating extremist material within the UK may constitute an offence under terrorism legislation."In the US where wikipedia is based, you have your own Patriot Act which includes Providing material support for terrorism. Having this link on wikipedia could count as material support, as it is a link to a terrorist video. Martin451 22:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is the most rational argument as to why this material should not be uploaded or linked to from Wikipedia. The problem is that this comes from your own legal interpretation. For something like this to become policy, input from Wikimedia's legal department will need to be obtained. Until there's a brightline rule regarding what can or cannot be included there will continue to be vitriolic debate between those who think it shouldn't be included (often for personal reasons) and those who think it should with the justification of WP:NOTCENSORED. I'm against censorship in general, however there will be severe backlash if Wikimedia servers are hosting large amounts of uncensored propaganda materials. I fought against having porn on Commons, esp when users uploaded images as "own work" without providing any age verification, however my suggested policy COM:SEX was rejected. Wikipedia also hosts controversial material "Collateral Murder" and images of Muhammad under the justification of "not censored". I would like your help to start a policy discussion, Board discussion, and/or RFC to help get this clarified before there's more discord, edit wars, and blocked users.~Technophant (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have read this message, it is a complex issue, and I will have to have a think about it. Martin451 00:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
While I neither started nor contributed to it yet that discussion has come to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#ISIL_beheading_videos.~Technophant (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: AfC Helper Script access[edit]

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Re:List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy (→‎Opponents of Creationism: try a different header)[edit]

Martin451:"try a different header" 14:55 2/9/15

Indeed sir, most recently the header was, Scientific Community, though this looks like attempt to discredit the other side (like saying his PhD doesn't count). Evolutionists has been tried, also Naturalistic Community. I changed the headers to Opponents and Proponents, as this seemed the appropriate titles of the sides of an Argument. And using Creation in this case as no one is arguing against Evolution (except one definition of the word), and it seemed to be the unifying thread of both arguments for and against. --End the Cow-Toeing, Grants for Science not Agenda (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Opponents and proponents does not work because it does cast a negative on "opponents", especially when they are reflecting current scientific theories. I changed the header to propenents of scientific models, this does not say that creationists are not scientists, but that scientific models are being used as opposed to a big guy with a beard did it. I have added the word mainstream to reflect that the models are those generally accepted by the scientific community. Martin451 22:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Many Creationists have proposed models of the universe that include a creation and fit well within the "Laws" of Physics, as Opposed to your Idea that Creationists do not use proper scientific methods. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Main stream models means the commonly accepted models. Creationists may have proposed other models, but they are not mainstream. Some creationists may use proper scientific methods, it is my experience that many do not. Martin451 23:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
and this discussion belongs on the talk page of the list itself at Talk:List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy where everyone can share,
Then you should have taken the discussion there, I would have replied as it is on my watchlist. Martin451 23:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I rather like the sound of Mainstream Scientists / Creationists, Mainstream Scientists referring more to the popularly accepted view (Steve) vs Creations. This allows the argument of "who's a scientists" to remain moot, and muted on this list. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)