User talk:Martin Hogbin

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

Earliest discussions are found at /Archive0. For later discussions see /Archive 1 and following archives.

Monty Hall problem mediation[edit]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Monty Hall problem has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Rick Block (talk)

Request for Amendment to Arbitration[edit]

Hello, Martin Hogbin. This is to inform you that there is a request for amendement regarding an arbitration case that you have commented on.Likebox (talk) 05:03, 8

?oygul's contributions[edit]

These diffs represent the sum total of ?oygul's contributions to WP apart from subjects directly related to the arguments concerning Tree shaping.

[1] [2] [3] [4] Martin Hogbin (talk)

Superluminal Aether[edit]

Your hrash words indicate that you need to acquire more intellect. Read the peer-reviewed publication. Sir-Restriction (talk)


It appears our infobox proposals are virtually ROA (Rejected on arrival), as far as British bio articles go :( GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Part of the reason for that is that the discussion is contiually be drawn into the more general case of how nationality is described in the text of an article. This is a quagmire out of which WP is unlikely to be dragged in the near future, at least not until we get some more independent editors.
The infobox is a much more straightforward case. Infoboxes generally use one or two words for the fields. It ie therefore imposssible in an infobox to give a subjective indication of nationality because nobody will know what it means. I think that, if stick to the simple logic of what should be put in an infobox, we might get a consensus to use the legal or formal nationality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
MOSBIO, is likely your best chance for getting your proposal adopted. IMHO, UKNATIONAL is a mess, a mere tool for promoting usage of English, Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish/Irish. GoodDay (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That is an idea but we will probably meet the same people there. Hopefully there will be wider involvement. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @GoodDay @Martin Hogbin Gentlemen, I have put forward a proposal here for updating the UK Nationals guidelines, I would like to hear your opinions. Essentially, the lede reads 'British' with a link to 'British people', the info-box reads 'United Kingdom' and the country from within the UK they were born (for example Donald Davies was a British scientist, the personal section starts with mentioning where he was born ie: Wales and the info-box lists the United Kingdom and Wales thereby satisfying all editors concerns. The lede follows legal and constitutional fact, the personal section covers his nationality within the UK and the info-box lists both the UK and the country within the UK. Twobellst@lk 15:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
To use Donald Davies as an example. If anyone were to replace Welsh with British & replace Wales with United Kingdom or add United Kingdom, without support from alot of editors? that individual would face a 'fight to the dagger', at that article. There's an editor who frequents those Wales-related bio articles & that editor isn't going to roll over for British and United Kingdom usages. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sticking to the facts[edit]

Martin, if you wish to take part in discussions, please do not misrepresent what other editors have said or take their comments out of context. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what have I misrepresented? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]


It's been a while since we worked on the same article. Since that time I've worked in some pretty contentious areas where the norm is to be as nasty as the WP laws will allow (or even nastier, if you have admins who will cover for you at ANI). I've become so used to it that to find your extremely civil responses to me each night, even though we are opposed to each other ideologically, is shocking, and wonderfully so.

I've learned from you that refraining from personal attacks and from being a jerk is so much more meaningful than being right, or winning the fight for content control.

So for whatever reason you continue to not be a jerk, I just want you to know that someone out there really appreciates it.

Best, petrarchan47คุ 06:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, your comments are appreciated. I hope that you can understand that I have no axe to grind. My only aim is to make WP into an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It's likely that the vast majority of us are here for the same reason, but we come from very different viewpoints. That's fodder for endless RfCs.
I do have an axe to grind - I can't stand to see whitewashing and spindoctoring in WP's pages. Unfortunately there never will be any shortage of it.
What WP does have in short supply are kind-hearted, patient editors, which is why I had to stop by and say thank you for being one of them. petrarchan47คุ 19:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I am equally against whitewashing and spindoctoring but I cannot see how that justifies promoting the, patently false, view that GM food is poison. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, what I see as covering a protest movement, you see as promoting its views. It's a good thing we have the RfC option. I'm glad you went ahead with it. petrarchan47คุ 10:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I do not quite see your reasons for wanting verbatim quotes from the movement in the article. Is it to promote them as fact? Is it to show extreme and unrealistic the marchers' opinions were? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It's no different from how I edit any subject. I aim to give the reader as much information as possible and to not engage in censorship. Check out my Decorah Bald Eagles article. See the use of quotations? petrarchan47คุ 20:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes I can see it is your style. It is in my opinion very unencyclopedic, more like a newspaper. You do not see writing like this is written encyclopedias such as Britannica or Chambers.
It also raises the question of who to quote and why. In uncontentious articles this may not matter very much but I still think it is much better to stick to the just writing sourced facts in our own words.
It isn't just my style, as you can see from the RfC, the community is almost 100% in favor of the quotations you find extraneous and dangerous. The thing is, it's best to drop your personal POV before logging in to WP. When you are finding yourself so dramatically at odds with the community, chances are your personal leanings are making NPOV impossible, and that you have no awareness of it. petrarchan47คุ 01:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
It is not 'almost 100%' but I agree that it is a majority. This is a serious problem in WP on most contentious topics. Fanatical supporters of a particular POV will always outnumber general non-POV editors like myself and many others. Curiously I will be taking your advice, to some degree, as I think WP is probably doomed to become a mouthpiece for minority and extreme opinions of all types. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Registration for the user that requested the RfC on sustainable energy[edit]

Hey Martin, while I appreciate your suggestion that I register, as you can tell my impression of wikipedia so far is rather, shall we say disillusioning. Presently therefore I simply wish to see how the RfC goes before entertaining the notion to register. I would very much like to say more but feel that it may jeopardize your neutrality in the RfC, so therefore until it is over, I'll leave it at that. (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It is of course entirely up to you whether you register or not but there really is no disadvantage to doing so. There is no obligation to identify yourself in the registration process and you can use any user name that you like. In my opinion WP is slowly being taken over by minority groups and the more neutral editors that we have the better. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
As you will see on the article talk page, not registering invites certain forms of criticism when your IP address changes. Whether you have done that intentionally or it is just part of your ISP's dynamic address assignment does not matter, some people will assume the worst. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
They can try and make a deal out of it, but as there is no other IP editor involved, I don't feel there is a great pressing need to register to prevent confusion. In saying that, as my ISP does assign a new IP everytime a connect, I'll try and make the effort to stay connected for as long as possible.
I empathise with your feelings about the strongly held views of editors/groups* and the general state of this encyclopedia. I've often wondered that perhaps a solution would be a sort of lottery that from time-to-time assigns article work to editors on topics that they're completely uninterested in. In the hopes that they'll, not only edit that article with a decided lack of emotion but also that this would enlight them by beginning to see the importance of similarly doing so on articles that they are interested/vested in.
  • Do we really have evidence of them escalating into marauding "groups" right now? (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

James Clerk Maxwell[edit]

Thank you for this message: "It seems that there is not much to be done about this until more editors turn up supporting what I think is the real consensus. Good luck."

A bit facetious, in my opinion. But we always suppose good faith. Of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varnebank (talkcontribs) 21:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)