User talk:Martinphi

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

Indefinite block[edit]

Enough is enough.--Tznkai (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Martinphi (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

I don't have a personal thing against SA, only a problem with the way he acts on Wikipedia, and we've been in contact because he edits the articles I do. Nor have I done anything whatsoever to further any on-wiki (or off-wiki) conflict between us. Tznkai is obviously thinking of my evidence at a recent ArbCom where SA has been sanctioned. But presentation of evidence at an ArbCom is no reason for blocking. I have done nothing else, besides participation in that ArbCom, which would promote any conflict between us. Further, my participation in that ArbCom is not over, and this block will interfere with it. I am a party in that ArbCom. Martinphi

Decline reason:

Saying "no reason given for block" does not make it so; the block reason is clearly provided above. I have reviewed your recent contributions independently, agree with the block, and also find your request for redress to be inadequate. east718 | talk | 19:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

I'm bringing this request up at the ANI thread. Not knowing any of the backstory on this, I don't feel as though I can judge this request myself. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently it has something to do with making it clear that a longstanding, but blanked, page is available in the history. According to policy, there is nothing wrong with this (everyone's personal information is so available, such as Shoemaker's), and ScienceApologist has many other links to his real name. I feel it is a matter of my personal freedom that I should be able to share these interviews, since it is part of my own participation. I feel that blanking the page itself was sufficient protection for SA unless the page was to be deleted, because blanking prevents search engines from accessing the information. I wished merely to be able to share these interviews, and see no reason why I should not have made it clear that the interview was available in the history.
I'm being blocked in the very middle of an unclosed Arbitration in which I am a party. Does someone think that blocking me will help stop ScienceApologist's problems? ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 19:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Martin, I think it would be preferable if you provided assurances that you won't out anybody on-wiki again. To be perfectly honest, I'm slightly surprised that you're talking about having a "personal freedom" to out people. If you provided these assurances, then I guess an unblock could be possible, although you would probably be restricted to the ArbCom case. PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this is a misunderstanding: it is not my personal freedom to out people, but to share what I have written myself, and whatever others have written in response to me. However, that need not include any personal information. When I said "personal freedom," I was talking about the GPL license: these interviews were under the the GNU Free Documentation License yet being censored. I see that doesn't apply to internal publishing though. So you’re right, I do not have a personal freedom to out people and I make a commitment not to ever out anybody on-wiki, that is if I am ever allowed to edit Wikipedia again. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 06:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Off-wiki as well. What happens in wiki stays in wiki. Respect people's personal lives and let them edit here. Deal with their editing here, and let them live elsewhere, unfettered and unpunished because they edited at Wikipedia. If editing here becomes a liability for editors in real life because others will out them on- or off-wiki, then we have a very real-life problem. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I've been disturbed at seeing some of that happen, as with NYB. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


{{Tznkai|Please see directly below for reasons: this template doesn't work with the formatting|Same as before; sending to ANI for review. Community ban == community review. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)}} I would like to be unbanned.

There are a couple of reasons I was banned. First, for "outing" people. If I am unbanned, I will definitely not post or even link to any personal information on other editors, unless they have expressly stated that it is ok to do so. Please note that in this case, even the blocking admin said that this was not a strong reason for banning me, and that the outing policy is unclear at best. I thought the wording of the policy at the time allowed me to link to information the editor in question had already freely posted on Wikipedia, but I see now that a great portion of the community disagrees with that view and I will certainly abide by the community's consensus.

The second reason noted for banning me was that I had a "combative attitude in disputes the subject of this case" [1][2][3], and in the blocking admin’s view, my last 500 edits were "not helpful" One reason for this is that a majority of those edits were in the Fringe ArbCom case itself. Even though I believe that ArbComs are an accepted venue for airing disputes, and things can be said in an RFARB which one would normally avoid, the blocking admin felt I went overboard and that I appeared to be using the venue to further a conflict with another editor, and to present my philosophical views. This was not my intention, I was attempting to give evidence and provide detailed reasoning in a serious case about a series of articles that have been the subject of much contention over the years.

Rather, if I edit I will continue the trend which I started before the Fringe ArbCom, which was to try and find a true consensus, forming alliances with people of different attitudes (the latest examples prior to the ArbCom were with Ryan Paddy and Orangemarlin), and to make sure that articles and edits have wide community support by using RfCs on contentious points and -as recommended by the ArbCom- [4] using mediation rather than long-winded dispute to resolve problems. This, again, was a trend I had already started prior to the ArbCom, recommending it on several articles including Chiropractic and Homeopathy etc.

Use of socks was also brought up in the banning discussion. The Durga's Trident sock was known to the ArbCom as belonging to me. I informed ArbCom that I wanted to present evidence with a sock for fear of off-Wiki and on-Wiki harassment. I learned a lesson from that, and I don't intend to do it again. I would only use a sock as policy allows.

I ask to unbanned and given another chance at editing Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and consideration. ——Martinphi Ψ~Φ—— 01:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for unblocking[edit]

The discussion at ANI has closed, with the decision that your block should remain in effect at this time. Should you wish to request an unblock in the future, please feel free to do so, perhaps also indicating how if at all you believe the situation which led to your being blocked initially has changed. Thank you for your contributions to the project and I wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavors. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Blossom Goodchild[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Blossom Goodchild. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blossom Goodchild (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:10 weeks pregnant.gif[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:10 weeks pregnant.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Blurpeace 05:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lopapc listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lopapc. Since you had some involvement with the Lopapc redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). - 2/0 (cont.) 05:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Strawman[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Strawman has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Martinphi Pentacle.gif missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)