User talk:MartinPoulter

This is MartinPoulter's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40: 121 days

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

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.

DYK for Heuristics ...

I have done my best but it seems your DYK is presently stalled. If you would like help on modifying the article, do let me know --Senra (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Substantial contributions and a methodically sound manner in working on or discussing the details of a subject or issue. Thanks a lot! 㓟 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Well Dr.Poulter, thx for the cookies, I would like to know if there's anyway of requesting help from other wikipedians to work on a certain topics. --Lbertolotti (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Heuristics in judgment and decision making

Hello! Your submission of Heuristics in judgment and decision making at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Senra (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to withdraw this nomination --Senra (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello

'hello Martin

why do some acadmics shun Wikipedia.

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

Hi Martin

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]