User talk:MartinPoulter

• Signpost
• Wikipedia:Tools and commons:Commons:Create charts and graphs online
• Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library • Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access
• Disambiguation page check • Peer reviewer tool • Link check • Special:LinkSearch (find links to a given domain)
• PrepBio: create outlines of biographical articles
• Useful templates • Tools • Help:Citation tools • User scripts

Articles for Creation: pending submissions by age | Reviewing instructions

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.

Thank you, Martin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stmeier (talk • contribs) 13:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

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.

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)

Could you add your name Martin? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Why are you discussing this here? Please have this discussion in the Talk page of the article. For what it's worth, these points, and your or my subjective reactions to the book in general, are not suitable matter for the Wikipedia article about the book. If we write about what certain facts "look like" to you, or to me, then we're not writing an encyclopedia. That Hubbard's devoted followers wrote a 16 volume biography with many positive statements about him is not at all surprising, nor is it in any way a significant fact about the independently-written Bare-Faced Messiah. Many of your points seem to be non sequiturs. But again, here is not the place to have the discussion. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Bullying

Hi, Martin. Regarding the recent changes at Template:Bullying, if you check this ANI thread back in April, Penbat was constantly wikihounded by Fladrif on several articles related to abuse and bullying, which also includes this template, to the point where he was unable to do any significant edits or participate in any discussions with him, as Penbat felt that he would be jumped on by Fladrif. Fladrif also seemed to align himself with the work of the banned user Star767. Fladrif was indefinitely blocked by Ched for personal attacks and chronic disruption (including the issues with Penbat and Fladrif) as indicated in that ANI thread. As far as I know, bans apply to all edits good or bad. In any case though, since consensus can change, do you think we should start a new discussion about this matter over on the template's talk page? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for giving some context that I was unaware of. What's sparked my worry is that Penbat 1) has reverted edits that were definitely improvements, 2) has reverted myself and other editors in good standing with edit summaries that state banned users are being reverted. Since there is more than one template where there is a problem, I think there needs to be some sort of table of the templates, issues with them, and any issues with Penbat's behaviour where those templates are criticised. Possibly the best place is as a subpage of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology. Then we can get hopefully a wider community of editors to look at the whole problem rather than individual templates. I know User:Penbat as a dedicated Wikipedian who does a lot of work improving articles in an area which has few good contributors, so I hope they can be persuaded to take on board the opinions of the (now quite a few) editors who have pointed out issues with these templates. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Jisc Ambassador

Hi Martin,

congratulations on the new role, and thanks for joining WikiProject Open Access. I certainly see how the two might go well together, and some ideas around such interaction are collected in this presentation. Cheers, -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

JISC journal archives

Hi and congratulations on the new role! What do you think are the chances of archived JISC journals being freely released (for those which are out of copyright)? Specifically (for the moment) I'm interested in James Gall's Use of cylindrical projections for geographical astronomical, and scientific purposes (also apparently available at jiscjournalarchives.ac.uk). Someone with the relevant access could presumably download all such articles and release them as public domain because they're so old, but that could be rather a hassle and we all know the tragic story of Aaron Swartz. Any thoughts/insights? Am I missing something obvious? Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Trev and thanks for the interesting query. I will take it up with relevant people, though I can't promise instant results. It's great to have a specific example to argue from. Where you could help me further is by giving specific examples of things you would do if you had access to papers like this. Improve the James Gall article for one thing, but any other articles? Any other specific old journals you'd like to get your hands on? What on Wikipedia is lacking that these journals could help improve? Any further examples are grist to my mill. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A specific example would be additions to Gall–Peters projection, both text and also including a free image of Gall's original map. Content may be useful elsewhere too, e.g. James Gall, as you state. Off the top of my head, old documents such as Minutes of the Proceedings (Institution of Civil Engineers) could be useful from a historical perspective. Presumably the ICE would like to retain some sort of control over this stuff but the reality is that it's rather ancient and AFAIK copyright has expired in many cases. This historical information could be used by those without subscriptions to build articles, which could then be improved by current researchers/industry experts who have ready access to (and direct knowledge of) more recent developments. Article creation from scratch is currently more time consuming (and surely more daunting for new editors) than the improvement of existing articles. Doing a bit of a search on here I found GLAM/British Library/Books, which seems to have similar goals to this suggestion regarding journals. If I have any other ideas about how content could be used, I'll post back here. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Just had a really interesting meeting about this. I would have thought that at least some of this content would have copyright expired, but that's not the case. This content is licensed from commercial publishers who have scanned and catalogued it, and have rights to the digital scans in perpetuity. Apparently a difference between UK and US intellectual property law allows that. So until somebody scans the journals and releases those scans to the public domain, we won't get the benefit. However, the discussion did set off a dialogue about ways we can work together, maybe in getting access to specific bits of content. You're right about the British Library books project: that will release a great deal of content in a truly public domain manner. BL are in a position to do this because they actually own the books rather than licensing scans. I'll see what I can do to help you with the Gall-Peters projection article. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. The information that commercial publishers have been granted rights to digital scans they make does complicate things a little. However, if the copyright of the original printed content has expired then the old journals are in the public domain and simple faithful photographic reproductions can't have new copyright applied AIUI (unless there has been significant restoration work, etc.) I think it would be helpful to place a clarification request at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, where those more knowledgeable than me may be able to help. I'm happy to do this (and would point you there) unless you fancy initiating such a discussion yourself.

Previous discussions of some relevance (on Commons) which I found are:

• Aren't journal articles under copyright of some form?
• Author uploads of Nature Publishing Group figures
• Using images in scientific journal articles

There have also been previous discussions of some relevance here on en-wp:

• How can a journal publisher grant permission to use images en masse?
• Diagrams from scientific journals
• Use of Photos / Diagrams From Canadian Medical Journal 1946
• Image published in a 1957 medical journal - UK copyright
• Line drawing from pre 1970s science journal
• Images in Journal Articles

What do you think? Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks- this is really useful. I will have to look through these links because I'm not very aware of these past discussions. I think if there were a way under UK law to get this material as public domain, they would have already used it rather than subscribing, but we'll see. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Mention in appeal on block of drg55

Hi Martin I have mentioned you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_drg55

talkback again

Hello, MartinPoulter. You have new messages at Mrjohncummings's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

drg55 appeal

I've made another mention of you in a clarification for Yogesh.Drg55 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't made your edits: you have. If you want to convince people that you don't need to be blocked, it's better to talk about your own behaviour rather than someone else's. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/High-Probabilty Request Sequence

Dear MartinPoulter: Thank you for taking the time to comment on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/High-Probabilty Request Sequence article. I have substantially changed it, and I wonder if you could take another look and see if it is more acceptable now. Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

As a virtual participant at the NIMR 2013 editathon, here is some virtual cake, as you missed out on the real cake on the day (with Rosalind Franklin's photograph 51 on top). Edwardx (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

orphans

Martin Thank you for reviewing my first article (Winifred Brenchley). It was an orphan but now I have linked it from Rothamsted Research. However it is still showing as an orphan. How do I get rid of this message? Arrowgold (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)arrowgold

Exciting!

Hi Martin! Thanks for your support. It's very exciting to become a contributor and I'm glad you're around to help out. Have a great day! Cdedaj (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

WP Psychology in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Psychology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments on "Creating a brochure for English Wikisource"

I posted comments at Creating a brochure for English Wikisource related to your proposed project. I look forward to hearing more on your thoughts. You found a great way to promote WS! - DutchTreat (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I posted a few samples of Wikisource Frontpieces at Creating a brochure for English Wikisource. Let me know when your draft is ready! Cheers -- DutchTreat (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Precious

ambassador of open access
Thank you, user with scientific background promoting critical and scientific thinking: for quality articles such as Heuristics in judgment and decision making, for planning an article on a study of Parents and Children, for serving as an Expert outreach/Jisc Ambassador, for inviting discussion and voting for open access, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikimania 2014 London

Hi, I'm the Open Access Community Liaison for Wikimania 2014. I think you already know that one track of the conference is going to be open access, so I just thought I'd mention the page about it on the project wiki. Feel free to add your name to the list of interested Wikimedians! Lawsonstu (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Katherine Warington

I have improved my citations and referencing for this article. Can the message at the top be removed now?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowgold (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I had no idea. I had been very busy, but I had just started editing a couple of articles again and to finish the day, I read the village pump, the signpost. Oh interesting, “Psychology on Wikipedia”… and I was totally unsuspecting of what I was about to read.
Thank you so much for your kind words! I am still quite shocked and very happy. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 17:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of edit citing my work

Hi Martin,

Thank you for correcting my error in adding a paragraph to the Behavioral Economics article referring to my own work. I had not realized it was violating the rules, but on reading the definition of appearance of conflict of interest can see how it might well appear that way.

The edit was made at the behest of several colleagues, and essentially stated their comment on how the cited article relates to the field. What is an appropriate way to add such an edit -- explain that they can do so but it is out of bound for me to do so, since it looks like self-promotion?

Thanks.

Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeJeffrey (talk • contribs) 18:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Florence Margaret Durham

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Cecilia Glaisher

Hello You helped me upload the page on Cecilia Glaisher this afternoon in Oxford at the women in science day editathon The page has been tagged and as i am very new to wiki i am not sure how to go about putting the links in the way he suggests - please could you email me some advice? Thank you - Caroline Caroline Marten (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) You could try posting a question at the Teahouse, as noted on your talk page. -- Trevj (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Thank you for the tidying up and link adding you have been doing. I am still finding my way around but hope the page now might meet wiki criteria and become un-tagged? all the best - Caroline Caroline Marten (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Good morning

Thank you again for all the help i got in getting this page corrected. And thank you for rmoving the box all the best, Caroline Caroline Marten (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)