User talk:MartinPoulter

Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Help:Citation tools | Articles for Creation: pending submissions by age | Reviewing instructions

Thanks.

Just a quick note of thanks for your ongoing help with our series of Psyc3330 entries over the last few years. We're learning and improving as we go (albeit slowly) and appreciate your guidance and recognition of our efforts.

SelfRef Humor.

Indeed, I agree with you regarding improper placement of such notes. Yet, let's go one step further and suggest that such humor should find a place for posting in its own Wikipedia article.

hello

'hello Martin

why do some acadmics shun Wikipedia.

Nigatt59 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin

Hello! -Stephen McGlynn (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Martin

Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map

I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country on your sandbox and post it to the project proposal page?

United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox

Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

UK Wikimedian of the Year 2013/Nominations

The Wikimedia UK AGM will be held in June, and nominations for the UK Wikimedian of the Year are currently open. If there is someone who you feel has made an important contribution to the UK Wikimedia movement in the last year please go ahead and nominate them here by 09:00 (BST) on Monday 20th May at the latest. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Bristol Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the Bristol Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Commercial Rooms, 43-45 Corn Street, Bristol BS1 1HT on Sunday 28 July 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Bristol topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you add your name Martin? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Bare Faced Messiah

Hi Martin, I wonder if you can help me? We are I suppose on opposite sides, I'm a Scientologist since 1974 and worked in PR to boot. However I have read Bare Faced Messiah and want to make some improvements to the Wikipedia page. I believe that you liked this book. I think I have been given a very hard time, I made an edit concerning the reference: " Among the private papers quoted in the book are a letter written by Hubbard to the FBI denouncing his wife as a Soviet spy, another in which he tells his daughter he is not really her father and an internal letter in which he suggests that Scientology should pursue religious status for business reasons.[12" in Background and synopsis. This is a lousy synopsis and its the opinion of a lawyer in a losing case in the US reported in the Washington Post. If you check you can see my edits of 14 June and 18 June which were arbitrarily deleted by Prioryman and Andrewman327. With regard to the first my point was that was not what was in the book. And the second, I don't see that saying that sources include "embittered Scientologists" is any different to saying that sources include FoI and stolen personal documents. It is fact not opinion. I made a few edits to the page in response to demonstrate how I felt I was being treated and have been accused by Prioryman of "disruptive editing" "June 2013" on my talk page.Drg55 (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are getting accused of "disruptive editing" because in your contributions you seem to think that Wikipedia's policies don't apply to you,[1] and you've been unduly hostile, e.g. accusing other editors of a "childish game".[2] It's okay not to know all the details of how Wikipedia articles are developed, but you have to be prepared to learn from the relevant policies or from other users. I can tell you more about your why some of your edits have had a bad reception, if you're interested. About this article in particular, I will reply on the Talk page. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, from my point of view the book was quite interesting, but

1. He seemed to get all the interesting FoI material that I recall was so hard to get, looks like a set up and the Church claims Hubbard's military record was doctored to remove his intelligence roles. We had a witness Fletcher Prouty. Heres a reference on that http://scientologymyths.com/hubbardww2.htm

2. The fact that the media backed the book looks like black propaganda ref http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SAUborWbPw Scientology continues to be against the abuse of psychiatric drugs which is worth billions internationally.

3. It lacked critical evaluation of the material. By definition the testimonies are from disaffected people as no Scientologist in good standing would have cooperated. In one passage two conflicting versions of events are given by different people.

4. The book overlooks Hubbard's tremendous output of lectures and books, around 100,000 pages and more, which many people have found tremendously valuable. Instead it just gives the embittered person's manufactured resentments at a time he was making tremendous production (bit like a biography of Mozart with no music and just whining about unpaid tailor's bills. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=GnXy0TPigw4C&pg=PA408&lpg=PA408&dq=mozart+unpaid+tailors+bills&source=bl&ots=1rrufveT-J&sig=n_wtyF_kkGEV--h7u-Docz3UUJY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nefCUcPaEMTQiAfbqIGwBA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=mozart%20unpaid%20tailors%20bills&f=false

5. The stolen diaries etc have been edited to sensational reasons leaving out many positive things to be found in the Church's recently released 16 volume biography.

6. Miller throws in the odd invented insult. He mentions for instance that LRH said he was Cecil Rhodes in a former life, and then that Rhodes was homosexual. Checking this I found no evidence beyond Rhodes never married.

7. Miller is clearly biased and caricatures Hubbard viciously. He shows no understanding of our religion, and only seeks to make light of it. The material I am reading currently is from 1953 and I looked up what he was talking about, it was drawn from Neoplatonism. Other material from 1952 was based on 2000 year old gnostic beliefs. Scientology is very well grounded as a religion which is why most scholars of New Religions recognise us as acknowledged even by our enemies. And while the UK has not recognised us this is in part because of the Church of England, a state religion and using that to compare what is religious.

8. Much emphasis was made on money, yet when Hubbard left the ship on one occasion he ate fish fingers and watched TV all day. There's no real evidence in the book of abuse of funds. And at the end of the book it acknowledges that the majority of his money went to the Church. It may be with good reason from past experience that he didn't trust people to safeguard our reserves.Drg55 (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you discussing this here? Please have this discussion in the Talk page of the article. For what it's worth, these points, and your or my subjective reactions to the book in general, are not suitable matter for the Wikipedia article about the book. If we write about what certain facts "look like" to you, or to me, then we're not writing an encyclopedia. That Hubbard's devoted followers wrote a 16 volume biography with many positive statements about him is not at all surprising, nor is it in any way a significant fact about the independently-written Bare-Faced Messiah. Many of your points seem to be non sequiturs. But again, here is not the place to have the discussion. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Bullying

Hi, Martin. Regarding the recent changes at Template:Bullying, if you check this ANI thread back in April, Penbat was constantly wikihounded by Fladrif on several articles related to abuse and bullying, which also includes this template, to the point where he was unable to do any significant edits or participate in any discussions with him, as Penbat felt that he would be jumped on by Fladrif. Fladrif also seemed to align himself with the work of the banned user Star767. Fladrif was indefinitely blocked by Ched for personal attacks and chronic disruption (including the issues with Penbat and Fladrif) as indicated in that ANI thread. As far as I know, bans apply to all edits good or bad. In any case though, since consensus can change, do you think we should start a new discussion about this matter over on the template's talk page? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for giving some context that I was unaware of. What's sparked my worry is that Penbat 1) has reverted edits that were definitely improvements, 2) has reverted myself and other editors in good standing with edit summaries that state banned users are being reverted. Since there is more than one template where there is a problem, I think there needs to be some sort of table of the templates, issues with them, and any issues with Penbat's behaviour where those templates are criticised. Possibly the best place is as a subpage of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology. Then we can get hopefully a wider community of editors to look at the whole problem rather than individual templates. I know User:Penbat as a dedicated Wikipedian who does a lot of work improving articles in an area which has few good contributors, so I hope they can be persuaded to take on board the opinions of the (now quite a few) editors who have pointed out issues with these templates. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Jisc Ambassador

Hi Martin,

congratulations on the new role, and thanks for joining WikiProject Open Access. I certainly see how the two might go well together, and some ideas around such interaction are collected in this presentation. Cheers, -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

JISC journal archives

Hi and congratulations on the new role! What do you think are the chances of archived JISC journals being freely released (for those which are out of copyright)? Specifically (for the moment) I'm interested in James Gall's Use of cylindrical projections for geographical astronomical, and scientific purposes (also apparently available at jiscjournalarchives.ac.uk). Someone with the relevant access could presumably download all such articles and release them as public domain because they're so old, but that could be rather a hassle and we all know the tragic story of Aaron Swartz. Any thoughts/insights? Am I missing something obvious? Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Trev and thanks for the interesting query. I will take it up with relevant people, though I can't promise instant results. It's great to have a specific example to argue from. Where you could help me further is by giving specific examples of things you would do if you had access to papers like this. Improve the James Gall article for one thing, but any other articles? Any other specific old journals you'd like to get your hands on? What on Wikipedia is lacking that these journals could help improve? Any further examples are grist to my mill. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A specific example would be additions to Gall–Peters projection, both text and also including a free image of Gall's original map. Content may be useful elsewhere too, e.g. James Gall, as you state. Off the top of my head, old documents such as Minutes of the Proceedings (Institution of Civil Engineers) could be useful from a historical perspective. Presumably the ICE would like to retain some sort of control over this stuff but the reality is that it's rather ancient and AFAIK copyright has expired in many cases. This historical information could be used by those without subscriptions to build articles, which could then be improved by current researchers/industry experts who have ready access to (and direct knowledge of) more recent developments. Article creation from scratch is currently more time consuming (and surely more daunting for new editors) than the improvement of existing articles. Doing a bit of a search on here I found GLAM/British Library/Books, which seems to have similar goals to this suggestion regarding journals. If I have any other ideas about how content could be used, I'll post back here. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Mention in appeal on block of drg55

Hi Martin I have mentioned you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_drg55

talkback again

Hello, MartinPoulter. You have new messages at Mrjohncummings's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

drg55 appeal

I've made another mention of you in a clarification for Yogesh.Drg55 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)