User talk:MartinPoulter

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

Articles for Creation: pending submissions by age | Reviewing instructions

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Mention in appeal on block of drg55[edit]

Hi Martin I have mentioned you here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg55 (talkcontribs) (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, MartinPoulter. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Improving Bodleian Library to featured quality?[edit]

Hi Martin, (belated) congratulations on getting the WiR gig at the Bod! I spent many happy hours there and some of my earliest published writings were based on their archival material - I'm sure you're finding it an engaging and productive environment. Looking at the Wikipedia article on the Bodleian Library, I can see that a lot of improvement work needs to be done. I assume that potential COI considerations may preclude you taking it on yourself (to say nothing of your other commitments) but I'm happy to have a crack at it for old times' sake. As you know, I have a pretty good track record with historical FAs and GAs (the latest has come through just today) - cf. User:Prioryman#Articles I've written - and I have access to plenty of resources at the British Library.

One thing that would definitely need to be addressed is the frankly not very good photographs of the Library on Wikimedia Commons [1]. I'm a pretty competent photographer myself and have some good equipment so I should be able to address this, but while exterior pictures are of course no problem, the Library is, as you know, not very keen on casual visitors taking pictures inside. I wonder if this is something that you might be able to facilitate? I would look to photograph the Upper and Lower Reading Rooms (and some of the paintings in there), the interiors of the Radcliffe Camera and the New Bodleian/Weston Library, and if at all possible the book stacks. Ideally I'd aim to do it shortly after the interiors have closed to readers, when I assume that only the cleaners would be present. I'd be grateful if you could advise whether this might be possible, as good photos would be an essential component for successfully nominating the article as a FA candidate. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Prioryman and thanks for this expression of interest. You are right that I am staying away from articles about the Library itself because of COI and because the focus of my project is to help counter WP's systemic bias. You've probably seen that User:Diliff has done some fantastic work recently: see [2] and the next page, but yes more decent photos would be useful. I will make enquiries about letting you in: feel free to Wikipedia-email me and we'll talk further. You'd be very welcome to visit us. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, saw my name pinged here so I thought I'd say a few words. I had a similar impression of our coverage of the related articles and last year made contact with a senior staff member inside the Bodleian Library who kindly allowed me to take photos of the Divinity Room, Duke Humfrey's Library and Convocation House which, along with the Radcliffe Camera, are the main historic rooms of the Bodleian Library. I thought I'd already added these images to the main Bodleian Library article actually but it seems they didn't filter through, so I'll try to add them in the near future. So while you are right that the article could do with better images and that the Bodleian Library category on Commons doesn't contain many good images, have a look at some of the sub-categories because I have uploaded some high quality interior photos already. One building that I was hoping to photograph but ran out of time with was Radcliffe Camera. As with other sensitive parts of the library, I believe photography is not permitted during regular opening hours of the Radcliffe Camera so I suspect that any photography would need to be done before or after opening and that would also require coordination with an escort (Martin or someone else) and the security guards who would need to open up the building. Incidentally, if you do manage to organise a trip to photograph the Radcliffe Camera, please let me know as I'd like to tag along if you don't mind company! Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This Month in Education: July 2015[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Science conference[edit]

Thanks for your note - I have today pinged details of the conference to CIPR colleagues on the science comms working group and to the chair/secretary of the STEM members group. I have also asked a colleague with direct STEMPRA contacts to forward my email to them. Hope this helps. Paul W (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Science Conference[edit]

Dear Dr Poulter, I was wondering if there are any spare tickets left for tomorrow and/or Thursday? I would like to attend and can pick up the ticket at the venue first thing tomorrow. Let me know. Many thanks Hydra Rain (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Hydra Rain (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Real-Life Barnstar[edit]

Real Life Barnstar.jpg The Real-Life Barnstar
for organising all those wikimedia event - particularly the science conference this week — Rod talk 20:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
  • Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
  • Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


Hello! Susan Hutchinson aka EngIslandGirl here. Thank you for a very interesting afternoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EngIslandGirl (talkcontribs) 15:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi Martin --Pipy2 (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi --Lindsay90 (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


I've been working on Véronique Gouverneur.--Sesostris 1 (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi: I'm adding to existing stubs about woman biologists--Olingo24 (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Martin! Making slow but steady progress on Winifred Sargent Kastrel (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, --Natalia Manzano (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies - I failed to sign my earlier message.

--EngIslandGirl (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Martin

I am writing a page about Jane Wernick a structural engineer who got a CBE this year.--Acgriff9 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Martin, hsm12345 wrote a short article on Elizabeth Blackwell (botanist) during Oxford ITServices workshop.--Hsm12345 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)--Hsm12345 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Martin

As per our conversation today, it would be great if you could take a look at the Malaria Atlas Project Wiki page and come back with suggestions on how to improve!!!!

Thank you!

From Rebecca Jones -

Message Ada Lovelace day[edit]

Do you really want another message? --Ylvaprytz (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Martin on Ada Lovelace Day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgratgratgra (talkcontribs) 15:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


I see that at Talk:Véronique Gouverneur you wrote "I've removed a bot's copyright tag: the body text of the article is original: the matched text is the list of awards which is a factual list which can't be presented another way."

  1. How carefully did you compare the two versions before concluding that "the body text of the article is original"? In the first sentence I see "Véronique Gouverneur earned a PhD in Chemistry at the Université Catholique de Louvain (Belgium) under the supervision of Prof. Léon Ghosez", as compared with "Véronique Gouverneur secured a PhD in chemistry at the Université Catholique de Louvain (LLN, Belgium), under the supervision of Prof. L.Ghosez", in which I have boldened the differences between the two versions. Likewise the second sentence is identical save for two changes: "she took up a postdoctoral position" as opposed to "she moved to a postdoctoral position" and reversing the order of the two expressions "at the Scripps Research Institute (California, USA)" and "with Prof. Richard Lerner". And so it goes on; indeed, some of the later sentences are copied verbatim, without any change whatever. The body of the article's text was certainly not original: it was excerpted from the given source, with very minimal close paraphrasing; even the bot, which relies on finding exact matches, in its report listed a large number of correspondences from the body of the text, not the list of awards, and any human observer, who can intelligently recognise resemblances where matches are inexact, should be able to see the unmistakable relationship between the two at a glance. The copyright infringement is perfectly clear beyond all doubt.
  2. Assuming that you think an article should have a complete list of awards, why can't it be "presented another way"? That is far from obvious to me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Clearly I was far too cursory. Thanks JamesBWatson for the comment. I'll work with the authors to redevelop the article from scratch. I think there's a reasonable disagreement here about the awards list, but it's moot in light of the other copyright violations. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for the cookies--Lyn Roberts 1 (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi. My pings don't seem to be working in this conversation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #181[edit]

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science[edit]

You are invited! Join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG
Women Science.png
  • Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015
  • Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event
  • Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
  • Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences
  • Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "phyisical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
  • RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #182[edit]

Finkbeiner Test[edit]

Hi Martin, thanks for your message! I didn't know anything about the Finkbeiner Test either, which is really why I picked it. It was fun to research and edit the page - in fact I really enjoyed both the editing/improving sessions I came to. I just need more time for editing now! Thanks for all your help. SarahPowellLoving (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Diana Astry[edit]

I'm very happy that you have worked on this and made it real. I had seen an earlier revised draft, sent to me too in an email, but I couldn't find time to do the necessary work. Andrew Dalby 09:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew. Pleased to make your wiki-acquaintance. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #183[edit]


Testing communications with Martin Poulter.--Collegehistory (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


This session is actually really interesting!--Jeniver auteur (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Martin.

Thank you for introducing us to Wiki editing. I am looking forward to editing an article!

--AntHarLang (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


I really enjoyed reading your article.

WW1 session[edit]

It is NOT awful!--Ylvaprytz (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


Signature in this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DStephenbarker (talkcontribs) 15:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #184[edit]

Madeleine Shaw Lefevre[edit]

Hello Martin

I see that there is now an article on Madeleine Shaw Lefevre linked to the Somerville College page so thank you for that (if I have read the editing notes correctly!) and for the very helpful course last Tuesday.

Best wishes

Collegehistory (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #185[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #114