User talk:Marteau

Possibly unfree Image:Helenkeller.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Helenkeller.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 07:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Calliopejen1 07:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagremover disputes

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tagremover disputes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Tagremover (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Pop stars

Thanks for your comment at Beyonce Knowles. Beyond Beyonce, I see the late Whitney Houston's entry comprises more than 12,000 words. Sigh....

Sca (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case request closed as withdrawn

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that an arbitration case request, named Tagremover disputes, in which you were named as a party has been withdrawn by the filing party. The commenting arbitrators felt that the community was able to handle this issue at the current time and it was withdrawn by the filing party.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tagremover (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Little Feat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pantheon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sriracha sauce

Also, the reference for Panda Express didn't mention them using sriracha sauce at all. - Takeaway (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pablo.paz

Hello Marteau,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Pablo.paz for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Blackguard 20:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. Was intending to create a user talk page and not an article. Marteau (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Kelly condition.

I agree that the chunk you just removed from [Blackjack] was too much detail, but to answer your question in the checkin comment ("what is the Kelly condition?"), the person who wrote that text was presumably referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion . Application of the Kelly {rule/criterion/principle} to blackjack betting strategy is described a bit more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting#Ranging_bet_sizes_and_the_Kelly_criterion --Blogjack (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Veggies (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

(copy-pasted from my reply on the talk page in question) As per WP:TALK "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page(accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." I deleted everything from Objective3000 saying, "It's been an entire day since you apologized for claiming that I willfully misrepresented something on a completely different subject.:)" on. Another editor restored it, saying "Deleting comments on an article talk page is a NO-NO!" That is not always the case. I delete this as per WP:TALKO which says under the "Off-Topic posts subsection" which says. "It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above." and "Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion." So deletion and sometimes moving material which does not contribute to the improvement of the article can in fact be deleted. That said, I will not delete it again and leave it to other non-involved editors to decide if they want this to remain. Marteau (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Marteau (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your response to my vote. Wikipedia is a great resource, but a few articles do reflect the biases of the majority of its editors. As a heavy user of Wikipedia, I would also like to thank you for your contributions.

JS (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of the term "redneck"

Marteau, you claim that the word "redneck" is offensive and bigoted in the context that I used it. However, I dispute your claim. "According to Reed (1986) and Hartigan (2003), a redneck is often thought to be a person who is ignorant, uneducated, or intellectually limited; who is from a lower social class; and who is prejudiced or racist..." That is exactly the type of person who reads and believes the kind of crap spewed by the right wing noise machine. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster, for when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss gazes also into you.” - Some German dude Marteau (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Just happened upon this talk segment, but as a point of fact, "redneck" is indeed classified as a pejorative word, regardless of the context in which it's used. Hence if one agrees with the contention that as sapient, reasoning beings we act immorally when we purposefully trigger an irrational, emotional response in others by using such emotive terms, then such terms should be substituted with reasoning arguments. My 2 cents, as a plurationalist. Fhburton (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Stoicism External Link to Circle of Reason

Hi Marteau, I won't press for reversal of your decision to revert/remove the old external link from Stoicism to www.circleofreason.org's plurationalist society; but limiting the article's links only to those modern practices named "stoic" or with ">x" number of uses of the word "stoic" may prove insufficient to highlight all real-world stoic practices in the public sphere, or even the most noteworthy ones. Plurationalists don't call themselves a branch of stoicism because the popularly-known stoic practice of moderationism is only one of the three behavioral practices of pluralistic rationalism (its others being factualism and skepticism -- both also lesser-recognized stoic practices); and because plurationalists believe that all stoic practices are reducible to a more fundamental axiomatic moral principle it seeks to emphasize, that Reason is the only moral source, test and conduit of knowledge. Nonetheless, aspects of stoicism are important elements of plurationalism. As one illustration, Zeno and Epictetus would probably have been intrigued by the Star Trek characters Surak and Spock; and were these Vulcan practitioners of "IDIC + Logic" not fictive, their practice's similarities with stoicism would be worth an external link. Pluralistic rationalists, however, aren't fictive. Best regards, Fhburton (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

December 2015

These allegations aren't coming from just right wing echo chambers. The Friendly Atheist isn't part of the right wing blogosphere. And neither is Tyson. Tyson has admitted to the mangling of context and mangling Bush's message.

The bullshit surrounding this issue has got to be called out when it occurs. This can no longer be dismissed as noise from the right wing blogosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HopDavid (talk • contribs) 02:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

October 2014

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Neil deGrasse Tyson. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I stand by every word. The bullshit surrounding this issue has got to be called out when it occurs. Marteau (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Striking

I appreciate your striking on WP:ANI. While I personally did not find the characterization to be remarkable in any way, your willingness to strike based on community feedback is certainly worth remark. Thanks. aprock (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Quakers revert

Hi Marteau. I am sorry if I've upset you. I am new to Wikipedia and am attending an American Literature course at Brigham Young University. One of our requirements is to add to or create a new wikipedia post covering some important information that is pertinent to our course. I have had a hard time figuring out how to cite things and am slowly working on this. I would love to add page numbers and will do so tonight once I figure out how to. Like I said, I am new to Wikipedia and honestly have never done any of this before. I need to publish this information so that I can receive credit for the information I have added in my American Literature course. Also, I think it provides a healthy addition to the scanty information provided about the Quaker colonial experience.

If I add the page numbers and then try to revert it tonight what will happen? I would love to add the page numbers tonight so I can have it published. Thanks for your help and thanks for watchin for this un-cited information on the internet. There is way too much of it and it makes doing research difficult when nothing is verifiable. Sorry again about being so slow and new to Wikipedia. Kyzun (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Matt Drudge

I think you completely misunderstood my reference to Drudge, but I can see how it was ambiguous, so I take responsibility for it. I'm actually interested in seeing you improve his biography. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

References

I read there was a rule about "References". Actually, that's all over the internet, that you need to use reference.

Perhaps you should be warning the other guy about that?

There's no heat on my side, there just no references, and the guy fed a bullshit line about the original Variety review from the 1950s because it was already being used in the article.

Why didn't you pull him up for those? --Salty Batter (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Salty Batter: The other guy does not need assistance with Wikipedia rules... you obviously do. References are not required for plot, see WP:FILMPLOT where it says "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." Marteau (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, there is no other reference.

I'm perfectly capable of discussing my rationale reasonably, if he starts a discussion and puts forward his. Even better, if he just adds some references. But that's not what he is doing.

He removed other edits. He used a false summary to make it look like he was changing it to someone else's when in fact he was just changing it back to his own version. I think the excuse he used about Variety was false. Now he's running off like a sneak to report it. WTF?

Who is this guy and why is no one pulling him up? Is this normal?

--Salty Batter (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Salty Batter: It is normal. You will often run into people you don't get along with, and people who will try to push your buttons. I'm not saying Dennis is doing so, I'm just saying that becoming aggrivated with people and questioning their motives is common here and happens to everyone. In the case of a dispute, there is a path we follow to resolve the dispute, it's documented at WP:DISPUTE. It begins with seeking "consensus" on the talk page, and involved discussing your reasoning. Edit summaries are not really the way to discuss it, and I'm not into looking at what Dennis has summarized or whether it is correct or not... where it matters now is on the talk page. Marteau (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, there are dicks all walks of life, and we all get to be one now and again, but please allow me to underline that I am not aggravated one bit. People tend to show their true colors in life fairly quickly and this guy surely has. For me, it looks like he think he owns the page and wants to provoke some kind of conflict. Unfortunately using a dishonest summary and running off to report it and attempt to engage others on his side, rather than just start a discussion, raises questions about his motivation and challenges my respect for him.

I'm just a little concerned about fairness and onesidedness. I don't mind being pulled up if I am wrong, but where two people are involved, and there are reasonable questions about the accuser or provoker actions too, then it should go both ways.

Is the 1950s Variety review acceptable or not? I would have thought it highly value record of the response to the movie at that time which is important. If the the Variety review is acceptable, then he was clearly in wrong. --Salty Batter (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Salty Batter: In this world, I pick my fights as any sane man should do. And I'm choosing not to get involved in this one any more than I already am. I'm not going to look at Dennis's edit summaries and see if they match up with his edits, for example. But I will say this much... the place where issues about the article are dealt with begins on the article talk page, or the other editor's talk page. If you cannot agree with the other guy, and you don't want to give it up, there are ways to deal with that and those are talked about in WP:DISPUTE. What you can do is ask other editors who are willing to deal with it, to comment on the issue by going to the "Requests For Comment" board at WP:RFC. Or, if you think things are really bad and need an administrator to deal with things, you go to the administrator notice board at WP:ANI. But personally, regarding the Variety quote issue, as I said on the talk page, I don't think it belongs in the article. Just because something is cited and has a reference does not mean it automatically gets into the article... there are many reasons it can be excluded, and I said on The Wild One talk page why, in my opinion, the Variety quote should not be in the article. Reasonable people can disagree, but in the end, what matters is "concensus" WP:CONCENSUS which is done by talking about it, and what gets "Concensus" stays in the article. If you think there are problems beyond that, or if you think something without "Concensus" is in the article and should not, you can handle it as a dispute as I said above. Marteau (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not the kind of guy to run off to momma, or snitch on others. Consensus among a small group of individuals can just as often be wrong as right.

What happens on the Wikipedia if you get two or three deluded individuals acting as a gang dominating one individual trying to keep things neutral and objective? Do the three just say, "we have a consensus" and win even if they are wrong or attempting to prejudice some article?

That's an honest question and I am not including you among the deluded or erroneous. However, I would like you to show me how I was using Varietyspeak, otherwise I have to consider that your argument is misleading.

If I was not using Varietyspeak, then why bring it up? Thank you. --Salty Batter (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not say you used Variety Speak. I said in an edit summary that I was removing Variety Speak, meaning I was removing the Variety quote "mob of youths". As I said on the talk page, I'm done debating this issue. If you have an issue with how anyone has behave, I suggest you use the means outlined in WP:DISPUTE Marteau (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Quit the deliberate provocation

Quit the deliberate provocation.

Appreciated.

Now please discuss. --Salty Batter (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Salty Batter: "Please discuss"? I already DID discuss the issues with your edit. I, in fact, started a new section in the talk paged to discuss that very edit which you insist on re-inserting. It's under the "Latest edit by Salty Batter" section in the talk page. You have not addresed ONE of the several issues I brought up. Not ONE. "Please discuss?". Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Incredible. Marteau (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked you to please stop the deliberate provocation.

Let's not pretend that last total deletion/reversion was anything but a deliberate provocation designed to create the effect you want and make me look bad. There really is no need for it. --Salty Batter (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Who is "pretending" here? You, or four other editors and one admin? Your edits on this issue are simply disruptive, POV-pushing, and show a complete lack of respect for the process of arriving at and respecting concensus. Hopefully you will take your two day edit ban to re-think your appoach to dealing with other editors who raise concerns about your edits, and will in the future try to respect the processes the encyclopedia has in place for dealing with disputes. Marteau (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Brian Williams - Pinocchio

What if I uncheck the minor edit box? Then what? I am so tempted to put that edit back in there. As a more experienced editor, tell me why I shouldn't if you would please. Should I just walk away from this article and leave it alone? I don't want to get myself in trouble, but at the same time I really felt good about that edit on Brian Williams. I felt like it was absolutely true. EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Michael W. Parker: The way such things are supposed to be handled is, to discuss the issue on the talk page and try to convince other editors of the merits of your edit, thus achieving concensus for inclusion. WP:BRD details the process... an editor "Boldly" edits, if it gets "Reverted" you then "Discuss" it. Of course, not everyone does it the recommended way, but that's the prescribed method. Marteau (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, great advice. I am learning how Wiki works as I bungle along and make mistakes along the way. I suppose I will just leave poor ole Brian alone. He is in enough trouble as it is. If he loses his job it will go down in history as self-imposed punishment I suppose. There is no need to pile on. The article is now more like a current event than a biography because of the fluid nature of the ongoing events. I am even feeling sorry for the original author, whoever that is, for they must now try to defend the article from full frontal assault by other editors. EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Please remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for reverting vandalism and other edits where the reason for the revert is obvious
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback

If you have any questions, please do let me know, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Marteau, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Marteau! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Tax evasion editor

I've requested semi-protection on the article to stop our spammer. Annoying. Interestingly, this person probably has been active on other article in the past. If you google the IRS case they used as a "reference", the judge in the ruling mentions the individual alleges a conspiracy which includes information about their invention being removed from Wikipedia. Kinda funny reading. Hopefully the semi-protection will stop the IP. Ravensfire (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And just noticed that the semi-protection has been applied. Squish! Ravensfire (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP is another sock of User:Timothy Sheridan (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215#Proposing community ban of User:Timothy Sheridan). If you encounter the editor again in any related articles, let me (or other admins) know and I'll block the new IPs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ravensfire:Heads up. Marteau (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do - thanks for the heads up on him. Ravensfire (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI: due to continued disruption today by this editor, I have started a new thread at WP:ANI#Persistent disruption by Timothy Sheridan. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Renee Richards

The page regarding Dr. Renee Richards has incorrectly spelled information and not complete and made uneditable This is referenced for you to change.. instead of Lahoya.....note the doubles partner was Brian Cheney. La Jolla Tennis Club Summer Tournament - Past Champions | La ... ljtc.org/la-jolla-tennis-club-summer-tournament-past-champions/ Past Champions 2012 Annual La Jolla Championship Summer Tournament ... Men's Champion – Steven Forman ... 1976 – Brian Cheney & Renee Richards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtsflorida (talk • contribs) 09:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Marteau (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

A Dissatisfied Customer

I'm not going anywhere Marteau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.77.150 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

GPD edit

I have removed 'GUID partition table' from that page simply because it's certainly a mistake! The correct abbreviation is GPT, which already has that link. GPD, on the other hand, isn't mentioned at all on the 'GUID Partition Table' page.

On the other hand, GPD is a valid abbreviation for Gallons Per Day. I copied & pasted from a VERY similar abbreviation : GPH. Both are widely used in the industry.

I understand that you think you have done right, but please double-check your info before messing up other people's changes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.10.159 (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I have removed GUID Partition Table, added Gallons Per Day, and put into alphabetical order. Including an edit summary can help prevent misunderstandings. If the change is minor, making the edit summary very brief (perhaps just "ce"... an abbreviation of "copy edit") is perfectly fine. Marteau (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Jack Griffo

Hey Marteau,it's me, the guy that edited Jack Griffo's page. The only reason why I did this was because if you read the information where it said he was going to be on Sharknado 3, you would notice it says the name of the character is Billy. Thanks for getting the time to read this. (hopefully). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B813:C8D3:55BA:AA1:8E72:E0E6 (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The version you edited has a table problem. You can see it does by the bold red text at the top of the page. I have reverted it to the last good version. Marteau (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Time for a topic ban

From NDT? Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Although it is not exacly assuming good faith, I think you'll have to do a lot more than accuse me of "soapboxing" before you get topic banned. Marteau (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions / BLP

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 - Cwobeel (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Approach

I fully understand your arguments for inclusion, don't get me wrong. But I am still objecting on the basis of poor sourcing and lack of notability. Mentions in right-wing press and blogs, and counter arguments in left-wing press and blogs, and a single mention in the conservative blog at WaPo does not make this notable enough for inclusion when the content is a contentious claim about a LP. This, in addition of all the arguments hashed out at the RFC, means that you need to seek consensus for including the material. So far, I don't see that consensus emerging. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have to gain concensus prior to adding anything to the Federalist article because of the Tyson RfC. The Tyson RfC applied to the Tyson article, and did not preclude inclusion anywhere else on the encyclopedia. The BLP issue on the Tyson article was because of undue weight THERE. Including this material on the Federalist artile will not lead to the same issues of weight,notability nor the BLP issues. It's simple... the Tyson RfC does not apply to the Federalist article, and I'm confindent that will be confirmed in due time. Marteau (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The RFC is important but it does not matter if you don't want to take it into account. The concern about poor sourcing and BLP stands, and you need to establish consensus to re-insert. That's all I am saying. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Just note that DS in BLPs are not a joke. I got blocked twice for it. Not fun. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Concensus is required before re-inserting a removal done for a legitimate BLP issue. IF the claim of "BLP" is bogus, there is no such requirement. I am saying your reasons are not legitimate BLP issues, and I am confident that will be proven in time. Marteau (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

:) - Circular argumentation? AGF, means that you will need to at least accept that the BLP concern I am raising is not bogus. The BLP/N thread is pretty conclusive in as much as non involved editors have already told you that the sourcing is deficient, and deficient sourcing is smack straight a BLP violation. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to your claim that BLP issues as referred to in the Tyson RfC carry over to the Federalist article. That's the bogus claim I refer to. Once we dispatch this notion that the Tyson RfC has anything whatsoever to do with the Federalist, and we can get past this incorrect idea that the RfC there has to in any way be considered in when adding the quote issue to the Federalist, we'll tackle any soucing issues etc as brought up on the Biography board. Marteau (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Tyson RFC was specifically about the same material you want to insert in The Federalist article. How can you say that the concerns expressed there are bogus? If the material was negated on the basis of WP:BLP the fact that this is an article on The Tederalist and not on Tyson is irrelevant. BLP applies everywhere in WP. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

As one of the closers put it, the question was whether the "threshold towards 'real' notability, and whether this coverage is of the kind of depth and quantity that will make it a part of the lasting mainstream image of this personality". THAT was the BLP issue. The BLP issue was not that the quote issue had an inherent includability problem... the issue was weight and notability for the Tyson article. It was determined that this issue had not enough weight for the Tyson article. It was determined that this was not 'notable' for the Tyson article. Whether or not this is notable or weighty enough for the Tyson article is a completely different matter than whether it is notable or weighty for The Federalist and you simply cannot say that a finding of inappropriate weight and notability for one article carries over automatically to another article. Marteau (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You are chery picking from the closure. What I read is this Closing this as do not include on the basis of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It is clear that this is a contentious issue, so without excellent sourcing - which establishes the weight of this incident in the context of Dr. Tyson's life and career - the default of non-inclusion applies. . And you want to add exactly the same material to another article? If we don't have excellent sourcing and no weight is established in the context of Tyson career, what makes you think that it is OK to include in an article about the outlet that published the disputed material? I don't see how can you stretch the policy to fit your argument. It seems that having failed to include that material in Tyson article, you are trying to add it somewhere else. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The requirement to put an event in the context of a man's life and give it proper weight in the biography of that man, is proper. That is what the closer was complaining about... that it was not given proper context and weight for the man's life story. But the Federalist article is not dealing with the story of a man's life. The weight issues are completely different. Completely different issues. The issue, again, was not the material. The issue was the weight of that material in the context of a man's life story. That's what the closer was saying. To say that we must frame this issue in the context of the man's career and and life in an article about a web site is ridiculous. Marteau (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You can call it ridiculous all you want, but the material is still contentious and poorly sourced, which made it unsuitable for that article, and any other article in Wikipedia. We are not here to promote contentious claims by partisan websites. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

mans career and life and give it proper weight in the biography of that man, is proper? So what were you arguing for here? [1] Uh? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

How anyone can seriously put forth the proposition that this does not even have enough weight for so much as one sentence is astonishing. Simply astonishing.. It seems that you are overly keen in including this material somewhere... It does not bode well IMO. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"ridiculous", "astonishing", etc. Maybe WP:ICANTHEARYOU? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

But he's right. The argument is ridiculous, it has no merit, it holds no weight, it will not be operative in determining article content, etc. etc. etc. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment This discussion should really be taking place in the Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson page, not on a user's talk page where interested editors that don't have a reason to look at Marteau's talk page can't comment on it. ― Padenton|✉   16:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Padenton: this discussion is stale, as we have already arrived at an acceptable consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Padenton, this isn't about the NDGT article. Also, Cwobeel's comments about "acceptable consensus" are frankly dishonest, as the dispute is quite ongoing. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I am disengaging from that article. I will let the children play with with themselves, I will npt be part of their silly games. Good riddance - Cwobeel (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Translation: "No further havoc to wreak there. Moving on." Marteau (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Two users on Freddie Gray talk page

Those two anonymous users are in an obvious edit war and are being disruptive. They appear to have edited the Marilyn Mosby page and I think it needs to be checked. Just giving a heads up that they should be surveyed, before they cause more damage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

RE: Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program

Suggest you link a citation to that addition :3 Melody Concerto^talk 05:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Melody Concerto:Everything I added is already included in the citation at the end of the section. In fact, everything from that section is from that cite. Marteau (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Rollback - vandalism?

Hi, you rolled back an edit I made on the Steubenville article. My edit was in no way vandalism - it was a good faith edit. I think the repeated information about the victim's intoxication is not necessarily relevant and in fact puts the article's neutrality into question. Uenuku (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Uenuku: 1) I didn't say it was vandalism. 2) What you just said as your reason just above was not what you said in the summary. Your reason given in your summary for removing something in the body because it is "already in the intro" and that is invalid and was no reason to remove anything from the encylopedia... that was my point and my reason for the revert. Marteau (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. There was a red "vandalism" tag on the changes that I'd never seen before but I guess that wasn't related to the rollback. I've asked about the relevance of noting the victim's intoxication on the Talk page. Uenuku (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see the Muckraker Talk page before another deletion.

I don't know how to "ping' another editor. Please see the TALK section on the Muckraker article before deletion and restoring long standing errors. Thank you. Activist (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, which I believe has been helpful. It isn't always easy to distinguish passing along a story from actual muckraking. John Nichols, who is a noted and accomplished muckraker, got credit from other media for being an "investigative reporter" who exposed the covert lobbying done at the American Legislative Exchange Council a year or so ago. In fact, in that particular instance, there was no "investigation" done by him. He just published documents that had been "thrown over the transom." I don't know if Drudge's publication of the Lewinsky affair involved any investigation, or he just published what some other source(s) initiated and supplied. Katherine Graham published the details of Watergate, but she wasn't doing any investigation. That leads me to one last thought. Woodward and Bernstein are presented as though they have only done work as a team. Do you think they and others similarly situated be listed individually, with the collaboration shown after their entry on the list? Activist (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muckraker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carey McWilliams. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Renée Richards

Thanks for fixes. Please change all the pre-1970s pronouns as per the talk page. I inserted the transgender policy therein. Zezen (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia censorship

On Tyson's talk page you praise Wiki censors for deleting information on Tyson. You wrote "people who want to know about the issue will no doubt resort to a Google search and learn plenty from the 'right wing echo chambers'"

The accusations aren't just coming from Davis. The Friendly Atheist has criticized Tyson for presenting false information and failing to cite sources.

Moreover, Tyson has admitted mangling the context of Bush's speech and misrepresenting Bush's message. Are you going to dismiss Tyson as a right wing nutcase?

This "right wing blogosphere" bullshit doesn't fly any more, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HopDavid (talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I was in no way praising Wiki censors. That should have been obvious from my context. Also, I quoted the phrase 'right wing echo chambers' and meant it ironically. Marteau (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Human rights in the United States, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Woodroar (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Collapse template / archive bot glitch

I just fixed a problem, but I'm showing it to you so you can avoid it in the future. {collapse top} needs to go below a =section=, not above it. It's also dangerous to try to collapse multiple top-level =sections= inside a single collapse. In this edit you put {collapse top} above the =section= heading. Even worse it ended up above all sections, in the header area of the page.

The archive bot comes along and archives the =section=. The {collapse top} wasn't in the section, and wasn't archived. The {collapse bottom} in the =section= does get archived. Suddenly everything on the page disappeared *inside* the unclosed {collapse top}. In fact all new Talk posts were instantly vanishing inside the permanent and boundless collapse header. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Unacceptable to remove the comments made by another editor on a talk page.

Note that per WP:TALK, it is unacceptable to remove the comments made by another editor on a talk page. Please do not do so. LK (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You were involved in that RfC, therefore you do not have the prerogative to assert consensus within that RfC. As I've said before, and now I'll say it again: if you want to assert general consensus for the article, do so outside the closed RfC. Editing the closed RfC is not the way to do it, and I'll go ahead and delete any further attempts to assert consensus within that RfC. Marteau (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP & AP

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Kids these days. WP:DTR Marteau (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you do when . . . ?

Hi, Marteau -- It appears as if you've been around Wikipedia a fair while, and been around to see disputes, and the behavior of editors and admins, and so forth, so I have thought to ask you, What do you do when an [admin, I guess] has hidden a section you've written on a talk page, for no good reason I can discern, and has, further "closed the discussion." You happened to have commented on the section I wrote, on the A. Machado page, "This article, as it currently stands, does not contribute to Wikipedia's purpose." The section was prommptly hidden and closed, and I would like to object, but I don't know who to, and where -- Thanks, Bruiserid (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bruiserid: He did "hat" the discussion... it is still there, you just have to open it up to read it. And other editor will indeed take the time to open it up and read what you have to say, although they will not be able to contribute to the discussion you started, of course.

The article is very high profile, and deals with the current election, and is a very sensitive subject. I would tread lightly.

As you may have noticed, the admin who hatted your section also fully protected the entire article from anyone editing it for another week. He also removed fifty comments from the talk page about ten hours ago. He also warned me of sanctions on my talk page just an hour ago. Evidently he is on the warpath, and because he is an admin, and you don't have a lot of experience, you are not going to be able to come out on top in any argument with him. I think it is a no-win situation and it would be playing with fire. We all have to choose our fights, and I appreciate what you had to say, but it's just not going to go far given the high profile nature of the article and the administrative involvement. Wikipedia has its faults and issues and things like this are an example.

Of course, you could ask him personally, on his talk page. But do tread lightly, and then you will be able to continue to participate in the subject today, tomorrow, and the next week, without getting banned or blocked or chewed out. But I honestly and unfortunately don't foresee you being able to change a thing about this. Marteau (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bruiserid: I've thought some more about this... he "hatted" the discussion. "Hatting" is something anyone can do, not just an administrator. And unless the "hatting" is outrageous, editors generally and traditionally accept and respect hattings, and people move on.

Although I disagree with the hatting, I don't think it was outrageous. Your discussion was more about the philosophy of Wikipedia rather than about specific fixes for the article. I think it should have been allowed, but I don't think the hatting was outrageous, and I would just accept it and move on. If it were outrageous, there are other actions and escalations which you or I could take, but I don't think that's called for in this case. As I said, you have to pick your fights, and this is not one you can win, I don't believe.

But if, against my advice, you choose to pursue this, I would begin by asking him on his talk page. Marteau (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

[Comment written before you revisited and elaborated on hatting --] Thanks, Marteau, for the thoughtful reply. I did ask the admin on his page why he hid my comment but have yet to hear back. And I, too, was warned about sanctions on my talk page, although I didn't recognize it as such, because the notice said it "does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date." (Why put it there, then, I wonder? ) I see that this admin is very high up, indeed, and I don't doubt he could do whatever he wants to me. But the editing, adminning, and protecting process has worked very poorly on the Machado article, in the manner I indicated in my comment, and I think a discussion on it should be allowed to continue unencumbered. But your point is taken, and I'm grateful for your response.

[And post your "revisit"] Yes, I will wait to see what answer I get on the admin's page, but not, as you suggest, push it. Thanks for elucidating all the angles, though, because this whole thing over at Machado (which I watched but did not participate in) has been a rude awakening for me, believe it or not -- it's a kind of insidious censorship, it's opaque, it's administered by a relatively few people, it's not to be discussed, and it's a disappointment. Best, Bruiserid (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi -- the admin answered as to why he'd hatted the discussion, cordially, and didn't chew me out, though he kindly suggested I study my BLP doctrine a little more thoroughly. (I already have. Plenty.) He said it was because my post was a meta-discussion of the rationale for adding the controversial info, rather than a suggestion for specific fixes. I asked him, with respect, where I would go to have such a discussion, then, as I think it's very important, for the reasons you and I both wrote about. I would love to post more about the "tyranny of BLP and NPOV," and the serious damage their indiscriminate application do to Wikipedia's credibility. But I won't, unless the admin tells me where! Thanks for the guidance along the way. Best, Bruiserid (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

AE

[2]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Marteau. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Marteau. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Marek isn't editing in good faith

His old account was Radeksz. He was caught by Arbcom in the WP:EEML case where he and others (including an administrator) coordinated edits on a mailinglist to control the content of articles, to game 3RR and to get other editors banned.

Their focus was anti-Russian editing and everything described in that case is being repeated in his (and others') Russia related edits. An archive of the mailinglist and excerpts are here: offsite coordination 5.157.7.59 (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)