User talk:Martin451/Archive 3

User:Torrenbaker/Torren Baker

Just FYI: WP:CSD#G5 doesn't apply to pages created before the user was blocked, which was the case here. However, WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax took care of it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou, I was not certain of the criteria, but it was an obvious speedy. Martin451 07:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Systematic false flag

Hi Martin 451. I would like to ask you for help. There is a user name BoogaLouie who has done many editing with bad intentions and tendentious for a prolonged period and structured manner on articles relating to Sunni and Saudi arabia. Can you monitor it, or fix it. His edit based on source that can not be accountable or books from the opponents of Sunni. This BoogaLouie guy has a motive. He is Shi'i Iranian movement supporter. Everybody is allowed to editing about Middle east. But an Shi'i Iranian supporter editing Sunni & Saudi Arabic articles with only inserting negative information paragraph from unreliable source. Its very obvious. Its not Netral. Its something you need to give attention. He is a longtime editor. I assume this is an attempt to framed, structured, systematic spreading false information. Please see [1], [2], [3], [4],[5]. Thank You. 36.81.78.221 (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution notice RE:Retrospective diagnoses of autism and WikiProject tags

This is a notification to inform you that a discussion has been added to the dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a dispute you may be involved in. Muffinator (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Direct link: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism

The deletion nomination of Medical Model of Autism

The term that my subsequent book search brought up is not related to what the article covers. The article is basically the autism rights movement's idea of an opposing "autism cure movement," which, as you refer to in the AFD, was the original title of the article at one point. So, yeah, it will definitely need almost wholesale replacement. Do you think I should renominate? --Holdek (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Holdek: I am not a medical expert. I would suggest leaving it a few days, or a week before renominating. Let things settle a bit around User:muffinator before a renom or drastic action. Martin451 02:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Thanks. --Holdek (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Martin 451

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I just gave my version of events to the Administrators' Noticeboard

So there is no more need to take offensive action, I give up on this pursue of remaining on wikipedia

--- User:Simon161388 - 15:21, 11 March 2014

Required ANI notification

-- GreenC 19:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#Talk:James_Foley_.28photojournalist.29 discussion on the issue. Martin451 00:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR

3RR doesn't apply to those removing based on BLP but it might apply for those reverting for other reasons. You are now at 4 reverts. You need to work with people. There are clearly BLP and FORUM issues in that text, and your constant restoring of that material is troublesome. -- GreenC 19:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again, where is the FORUM or BLP issue with the comment of mine you repeatedly removed, without (by your own admission) actually reading? Martin451 19:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI

I just wanted to let you know that you are required to notify the subject when starting a thread about them at ANI, as you did here. Consider this your notification. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Dana Duckworth

Martin, could you take a look at this revamped article and see if the improvements are enough to address your previous concerns regarding notability and sources? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your remarks concerning terrorist related media

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

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)

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)

Noticeboard report

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Natural Ratio (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Link to discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#I_believe_I_am_being_harassed_by_Martin451 Martin451 21:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:List of films about Nobel laureates

Draft:List of films about Nobel laureates, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of films about Nobel laureates and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:List of films about Nobel laureates during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)