User talk:Martin0001

Akerman
* 13:01, January 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Rudd ‎ (Improved simplicity of Environment section, and added KR education info for objectivity.) * 12:35, January 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) Cate Blanchett ‎ (Improved consistency by including "although she has no education in the relevant sciences." to Personal Life.) (top) * 17:23, January 4, 2009 (hist) (diff) Piers Akerman ‎ (Undid revision 261836654 by Ratel (talk)) * 14:44, January 4, 2009 (hist) (diff) Piers Akerman ‎ (Removed "although he has no education in the relevant sciences." from Controversies section.)

That's some really fascinating stuff there Martin0001! *giggle* Timeshift (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Euryalus. What one does is take an issue to the talk page where the issue can be discussed, what one DOES NOT do is go around to other pages adding silly prefixes just to make a WP:POINT. That is not how we do things on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the points you make, but don't feel it is worth fanning the flames. Good day. Timeshift (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Akerman article
I've removed the "lack of training" phrase from the Akerman page as the suggestion that formal climate science education is necessary before expressing a view on it is a point of view rather than anything independently sourced. Re your comment here, could I ask you not to disrupt other articles to make a point about the Akerman one? Euryalus (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've explained my reasoning at Talk:Piers Akerman, which is probably the best place for this discussion going forward. Euryalus (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Merbabu (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * PS, I've read Timeshift's and Euryalus' comments and endorse them. Happy editing and welcome to wikipedia. --Merbabu (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Hamas
Hi FayssalF! You recently removed an addition I made to the Hamas site. Perhaps you didn't notice, but I had placed my addition, references and all, in the talk page for over 24 hours. Nobody even commented on it, so I was surprised to see you removed it after posting. Perhaps I'm being unrealistic, I guess I can't expect every editor to check the talk page first.

In any case, I suspected that the Youtube link my have been considered lackluster to some editors for such a controversial issue. That is why I added an additional link to a newspaper reporting on the speech.

I'm somewhat offended that you didn't clarify why that ref was also unacceptable. I'm also concerned that now that you've made the revision, you'll be hesitant to accept the other reference I provided, whereas if I'd never used the youtube link, you might have left the passage be. I hope this doesn't offend you or seem impolite, but from my perspective of your edit summary, it looks like you didn't consider the other reference and chose to delete all my work rather than amend to remove the youtube link.

Thanks buddy, get back to me. Martin0001 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Martin, there are two problems with that section. a) verifiability (translation) and b) neutrality (biased sources). They are both policies and not just guidelines. I appreciate the fact that you had used the talk page before inserting the section but the fact that no one has commented doesn't mean that people agree. I'd agree if you just use some of the resources we have at Human shields instead as they are well-sourced and verified. And please, avoid quote farming because we have Wikisource for that. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  12:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey again. You noted " I'd agree if you just use some of the resources we have at Human shields#Gaza and the West Bank instead as they are well-sourced and verified.", I did use the source from that site... it was that so famed second reference I mentioned. Didn't you look at it? or compare it to the ref provided on the site you asked me to look at?


 * BTW, thanks for telling me about the quote framing thing. I guess I'll have to try and rephrase it. Or I could copy paste the relevant info from Human shields, but I think what's been written for that site could be improved upon. Martin0001 (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I know you used a source apart from the Youtube video. In fact, there are many third party sources that are unbiased wich represent neither side of the conflict. There is a big difference about the reporting of -say- the BBC (an example) and others who may be one-sided. Someone else may argue with you and refer to this video. Wikipedia is about neutrality and using one-sided sources are contradictory to our mission here. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  13:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see how someone could argue with me and link that youtube video, in which case I would take the position that while their video is a BBC news report with opinions, mine was a direct quote which supports my position that Fathi Hamad said X, Y and Z, where it not for the translation and verifiability issues. But that doesn't matter anymore FayssalF, we're past that. Now I'm asking you why you're telling me "I'd agree if you just use some of the resources we have at Human shields#Gaza and the West Bank" when I did just that. The second source is right from that article. It's after midnight here, so maybe I just wasn't being clear. Martin0001 (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a BBC source at Human shields#Gaza and the West Bank. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  13:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin, just re-introduce your edit and write in Edit summary 'reintroduced after discussion & agreement with editor who dlt it'. Politis (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)