User talk:MartinHarper

stuff moved or deleted as it reaches its shelf life. If you feel some piece of discussion has a long shelf life, please indicate appropriately, and I'll let it hang around a bit. Thanks.

Image "feature request"

Martin,

The reason why I posted my comment about the need to update the image policy in the image policy discussion page, despite my proposal requiring enhancements to MediaWiki, was that it is both a policy and technical issue, with modifications to MediaWiki required in concert with the policy change.

In any case, from a policy standpoint, do you think what I proposed is a good idea? --Robert Merkel 00:33, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

172 Evidence

Was moving it to my name space ok? I am a bit nervous about making any mistakes regarding such weighty matters. Thanks for fixing the links, btw, that’s not at all your responsibility and I greatly appreciate the assistance. Sam [Spade] 18:13, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fine by me.

:) Sam [Spade] 18:18, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Journal/periodical/feed summaries

Hi Martin, are there journals you read regularly? You might be interested in this project: m:Wikisummaries. I think I will begin somewhere on en:, perhaps in my user space... +sj + 00:01, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Blocking policy

You asked a question on the discussion list:

"Previously we ruled that Wik must not revert without giving a valid reason. In this case, we may rule that certain admins must not block without giving a valid reason.

I am curious as to why people would object to the latter ruling on a matter of principle, when I did not hear similar objections in the earlier case of Wik. Perhaps someone could explain the difference to me?"

I would answer that Wik was being punished for things he'd done wrong according to policy. An admin being instructed (or admonished on their talk page ex-post-facto) to take an extra action when banning has no such approved policy. The difference make sense?

I don't disagree with the idea. Only that it needs to be approved as policy instead of vigilante arbitrators (ok, a little license) independently determining what admins do are right or wrong. I'm asking that it be done through policy and not arbitrators playing "I know better than you". - Tεx τ urε 00:09, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We have found that the five admins in question have done things wrong according to existing blocking policy (your emphasis), just as we found that Wik had done things wrong according to existing reversion policy.

Accordingly, we are going to instruct those five admins to act in a certain way when blocking, just as we instructed Wik to act in a certain way when reverting. These instructions provide the remedy that helps to enforce community-made policy, which is what we've been asked to do. The situations still seem precisely identical to me. Martin 18:32, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So this only applies to the five admins? That's reasonable. I assume if this is intended as overall policy it will be done on the policy page. (I will likely support it.) - Tεx τ urε 20:54, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's my intention for remedy #3, certainly. Why don't you propose the change to blocking policy yourself, if you think it's a good general idea? Martin 21:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. If I were to propose it I would only require either the reason to be clearly on the block comment or the users talk page. (You can explain a lot on the talk page you can't on the comment.) Also, who would be the authorized "unblocker"? Any admin? Bureaucrats? - Tεx τ urε 21:56, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Makes sense. If a reason is given in talk, it seems sensible to me to link that talk page in the block reason - helpful for the blocked user, for victims of collateral damage, and also for folks double-checking that blocks are justified. Martin 22:25, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lir's answer -> Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Evidence/Defense

Arbitration - subject: User:Mike Storm

I was just wondering if you could please post your vote on the subject of User:Mike Storm on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I would like to get this matter dealt with with quickly, but you're probably busy so please take your time. Thanks! [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 17:50, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172 arbitration

"Leave hanging while the two existing Lir cases are resolved - the outcome of those two may render arbitration in this case unnecessary."

Wouldn't my request still be active regardless of the result of Lir's arbitration? Sam [Spade] 22:19, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course. However, the Lir case will effect whether I decide to accept or reject. Martin 18:18, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

-> Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Evidence/Defense

I have a talk page. If you want to talk to me, use my talk page. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Counts

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Counts --mav

Done.

Sorry, I was a dick and should not have been so sharp. --mav 05:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Advice

Thanks for the advice. My next arbcom request will follow it. :) Snowspinner 12:50, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Substubs

Since you participated in the discussion on this subject, could you express your opinion on what to do with the substub template at Template talk:Substub? Thanks. --Michael Snow 21:25, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My talk page is User talk:Lir -- if you want to talk to me, use it. Lirath Q. Pynnor

re: the Herschelkrustofsky list

Martin, regarding what may seem to be my nit-picking over that subject header: Adam and Andy are clever, in their own way. Their objective is to find as many ways as possible to insinuate that it is fair to call LaRouche a fascist. I don't think they care whether LaRouche's ideas are original or not; they sieze upon the subject as an opportunity for a little sleight-of-hand, finding a way to associate LaRouche with Franco and Salazar, who were fascists (and frequently denounced by LaRouche). --Herschelkrustofsky 14:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Martin, the sections on Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/Jewish_issues under the heading of Jewish deaths in the Holocaust have been resolved to my satisfaction, and you may move that to the Closed issues area. I am reluctant to do it myself, because that section is so voluminous, and I wasn't certain that it should all be moved to that area. I have added some new points to Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/Jewish_issues, because Adam re-wrote it and added some new clinkers -- but on the whole, it is an improvement. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: "arbitration/Rex071404"

-> Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404

Question about Lyndon LaRouche article

Dear Arbitration Committee:

[snip cross-posted content]

I have nothing to add to Fred Bauder's comments.

I'd just like to backup Fred's request, and to remind you that the Lyndon LaRouche article is not going to get any more favourable to that man as a result of you attacking Adam Carr or Michael Danby. One other small comment: Wikipedia is not Truth; it is an encyclopedia. We desire to be accurate, unbiased, verifiable, and encyclopedic. Being "true" is sometimes a by-product of these things, but not always. Martin 22:22, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, I get both points. Believe it or not, I have never sought a "favorable" article on LaRouche -- if you look at my Lyndon LaRouche/draft, I scrupulously acknowledge all the attacks on him. I suppose that Truth is not something we should be aiming for, but I would certainly settle for accurate and unbiased. Verifiability is necessary, but beware of fallacy of composition: you can have an article made up of verifiable facts that completely misrepresents its subject, by means of what it leaves out. And the thing that troubles me about the whole Lyndon LaRouche affair vis-a-vis Wikipedia, is that many of the participants in the controversy seem comfortable with something that may be biased and inaccurate, so long as it is consistent with biased and inaccurate media reporting. I'd like to think that Wikipedia aims higher than that. --Herschelkrustofsky 01:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mission to accomplish

Ill get to that other writeup if I have time... In light of the continuing Iraq events, being somewhat hard to differentiate along the lines we are dictated, I'd like to unify the Iraq occupation and the 2003 Iraq War /Gulf war... under the "Iraq War."

I wanted to know what you thought of the idea, how many times its come up before, what the reasons against it were, and whether or not its POV to use US terms for wars in which the US is involved. If this were 1965, for example, there would have been all sorts of different names for for the proverbial elephant, (snake, tree, etc) but not the basic and straightforward one used today, in perspective. Is it POV to proactively apply a common sense and elementary degree of historical perspective, or is the internet just not fast enough yet to get away with using rational terms and contexts? -S V 16:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whether good or bad, US terms for things do tend to spread via cultural imperialism, and in some cases may thus be the most common name. However, NPOV considerations apply where the US term is misleading in some way.

It would be nice to promote logical names over common names, but realistically that would result in more conflict. Martin 10:30, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Rex071404 John Kerry ban

-> Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404

arbitration matters

Rex's question answered @ Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404

Lir's question answered @ Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Proposed decision

Re:[1]

Hey, since were a couple now and all, theres a couple arbitration matters I'd like your help on... ;) Sam [Spade] 21:38, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The sex won't be as good then...

:o

Unit 731 protected

FYI, I've protected Unit 731 and moved the disputed text/photo to the talk page. Feel free to discuss there. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 02:04, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Request for comment

I quoted you on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mintguy, so I wanted to at leat point your attention at it. I'm wondering if you have anything to add, or perhaps wish to certify the event you were involved in. See [Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mintguy]]. Thanks. -- Netoholic (Talk) 19:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In my usual () way, Ive changed the main rule on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion from depopulate the category before... to do not depopulate the category until it has been voted for deletion. I also wrote a little about the problems with the previous policy, and the issue of rapid population versus the hard work of depopulating:

...I didnt write the first version, and was following it when I ran into the FHM category (perfect bad example). If the issue is that someone is overpopulating a bogus category in violation of NPOV, then they need to be stopped in process. Maybe an arbitrator like MyRedDice or Maverick can issue a quick injunction if requested. If its vandalism, they can be blocked, but if its POV, I think we need an arbitrator judgment. -SV 15:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reply

I replied to you here.