User talk:MartinPoulter/Archive 1

Welcome
MartinPoulter (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (replacing previous kind welcome from Psy guy, 1 November 2005)

Exposure Effect
It was a mere clarification of something already present in the article. The exposure effect details precisely that a stimulus becomes more pleasant when it is already familiar. The sentence in that paragraph confunsingly suggests the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.77.193 (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Micromort
Hi martin, I originally added this paragraph: "MICROMORT", a computer program (by Heisey and Fuller, 1985) used to estimate mortality rates, commonly used in ecological studies.

It is a widely used program in ecological studies, as can be witnessed by the hundreds of papers mentioning it: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=micromort+Heisey and several books about ecological studies (ex: Williams, B. K., J. D. Nichols, and M. J. Conroy. 2002. Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press)

I believe it is a relevant and notable piece of information for an encyclopedia.

Since I'm not a user, I cannot create new pages. Could you add a disambiguation page and a new stub for MICROMORT (software) ? 93.173.212.177 (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've created the stub: will add dismbiguation page now. Please go and add some more references to the stub to establish notability. Thanks. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts, with only two meanings of Micromort, there is no need for a disambiguation page. I've put hatnotes in each article to link to the other. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Scientology
Dear Dr. Poulter:

As I am new to editing Wikipedia, I may well have taken a tortuous and difficult route when an easier one was available. If so, please forgive me.

I am contacting you because:

1. The article on "Fair Game" as regards Scientology has very little discussion attached to it.

2. What little history there is has your name prominently attached to it, and

3. You, therefore, seemed the most appropriate person to whom to address my question.

I am flummoxed by the quotation in the section titled "Ongoing aggressive policy" attributed to "Lord Justice Stephenson, in the judgement in Church of Scientology of California v. Department of Health and Social Security [1979]."

Presumably, an action brought by the Church of Scientology of California would be heard in California courts, or at least in U.S. courts, yet we Americans left off such terms as "Lord Justice" more than two centuries ago.

Could you please provide some illumination of this case? Was it heard in a British court, and, if so, why? Should this information not be included in the article?

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Altgeld (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Altgeld, I've answered your question at Talk:Fair Game (Scientology). The plaintiff is indeed based in California but the defendant, Department of Health and Social Security, was at the time of the case a ministry of the British Government.  The presumption that a case brought by a California plaintiff would be heard in California courts regardless of the identity of the defendant is hardly a foregone conclusion; in fact, it is not clear (to me, at least) that action against a ministry of the British Government could be taken by a private entity anywhere but the British courts. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I wasn't the person who inserted that mention, I'm happy to help in this case. I've answered you on the talk page MartinPoulter (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes/cite formatting
Are you familiar with Template:Citation] and [[Template:Harvard citation no brackets for cites with page numbers? More info at Harvard citation template examples and Template talk:Harvard citation no brackets, and good examples are The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa. I will reformat the commented-out page numbers to that format when I get a chance. Cirt (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Psychokinesis
I must commend you for your edits to Psychokinesis, cutting out random opinions, and putting forth the arguments in a cited neutral list makes the article signifigantly more organized, easy to read, and informative. I'm very pleased with how far this article has come in the last year. The previous poor state (I believe the term "trainwreck" was bandied about in talk) of this article is one of the major things that influenced me to become a more serious editor of WP. Keep up the great work! -Verdatum (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for that. There is clearly a lot more that could be done with the article, but I'm taking it a step at a time, and getting hold of as many relevant academic books as I can. Then maybe it can be a model for what can be done with other parapsychological topics. Cheers,MartinPoulter (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I may call on your help, in fact, if that's okay. I'm still a newbie as regards WP procedures. You're clearly a lot more experienced than I, and once I'm happy with the Psychokinesis article, I'll want to put it up for some kind of review to establish it as a quality article, or find what further needs to be done. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Finders Keepers (1981 UK TV series)
Hey, thanks for fixing that reference; sloppy work on my part. :-(

(In case you're wondering what the Rugrats URL had to do with *anything*(!), I'd cut and paste an already-filled instance of the "cite" template from elsewhere to use as a guide... and I guess I messed up my editing!) Ubcule (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Scientology arbitration
Per the request of arbitrator, this notice is to inform you of the current arbitration case concerning Scientology, which can be viewed at Requests for arbitration/Scientology. You are receiving this notification because you were one of the users listed in the new evidence presented by Jayen466.

For Roger Davies and the Arbitration Committee Daniel (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientology arbitration
This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding cognitive biases

Dr Poulter, I saw the changes that you made to what I wrote about cognitive dissonance and neural network models. I am an undergraduate Psychology student, graduating next semester and hoping to switch to Philosophy of Mind or double major psych and phil. I was wondering if you agreed with my input, also if you cared to look at my undergraduate thesis, I have already submitted it but I put a lot of work and thought into it because on reviewing the literature of cognitive dissonance, I thought psychologists treated cognition and behaviour in an inept way and that there were some glaring inconsistencies that needed to be addressed. I was also wondering if you could recommend any reading that deals with cognitive biases. Sincerely Dead goddess (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Scientology
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :


 * Banned : (Community Ban),
 * Topic-banned :, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 * To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*,
 * Other restrictions :
 * gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
 * is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
 * is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.


 * #Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bayes
What confuses you in the formulation of Bayes' law for conditional probabilities? Nijdam (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at Talk:Bayes' theorem. Nijdam (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Operation Freakout
Don't worry about the article, Martin, I'm going to overhaul it in a few days anyway. You might be interested in seeing what I'm currently working on in userspace - see User:ChrisO/List of Guardian's Office operations. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My apology
I am very sorry for my error. You were right to call me on it. I hope you'll accept my apology. I have made a public statement of error, and will do whatever else you feel is necessary to rectify the mistake. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Em dashes
Good work, cheers))

P.S. Where did you find the symbol for it?Jprw (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for thorough and prompt reply—exactly what I was looking for.Jprw (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wearing the lemon
Hello MartinPoulter. Did the phrase "Wearing the lemon" ever appear in the targeted article. As best as I can tell, it would have targeted this version when created (although I may have lost track of a move), but I can't find a lemon reference there or elsewhere. (The RfD clearly merits a delete -- I'm just curious here.) -- ToET 09:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not seen that phrase in the article, although it may have been in there earlier than my involvement. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Two envelope paradox
Thanks for the support on the "two envelope paradox" page. This article seems to present this paradox (which has a trivial Bayesian solution) as an open problem that exposes a flaw in the Bayesian paradigm. Would be good if we could clean it up. It also turns out that there is an article which gives the correct solution, so the easiest option might be to delete the bogus page! Tomixdf (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation bias
It looks like you have done a lot of work (and made a lot of progress) on the confirmation bias article. I'll look over it more carefully in the next few days. Neramesh (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation bias
Thanks for your interesting contribution to the Confirmation bias article. I hope you don't mind if I move it to the "Consequences" (i.e. conf bias in particular contexts) section rather than "History" (about the development of the idea of conf bias). My request is, could you add page numbers, please, for the section of the book that describes those conclusions and relates them to conf bias? Thanks in advance, MartinPoulter (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks like the perfect place for that paragraph; thanks for spotting that. Unfortunately, I don't actually have the referenced book, so I'm unable to supply page numbers.  I only found secondary references, but the book itself seemed to be the best pointer. -- Beland (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations on Confirmation bias! Your first WP:GA, nice work. ;) Cirt (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Article titles should not appear in headings?
Why not? I ask because that was the edit summary for bias. Thank you. &mdash; Cp i r al Cpiral  06:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:MOSHEAD. "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea if this is how to 'talk' this wiki business is all very new! Thanks for the advice. I am writing the article on my user page initially because my lecturer needs to look at it before it goes into the big wide wiki world on its own page. (Laurenclifford (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Why are they dead
Um, your website has some interesting stuff. Unfortunately, though, it seems that the link to whyaretheydead.net now goes to some domain name squatter, and web.archive.org hasn't stored the original. -- Hoary who doesn't even have a measly bachelor's in psychology but likes to think he can detect pseudo-psychological horseshit in Motivation and the rest, 14:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Outrageous Betrayal
You had previously commented in dispute resolution during a Request for Comment at the article Outrageous Betrayal. Please see Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Sciologos. You have been involved with this issue in the past, perhaps you could help with investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation bias
Kudos for your outstanding work getting this towards FA status, I'm sorry that I was too busy to respond to your request for help in a timely fashion! Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I could look up the Shermer ref, but I think it would be overkill - the discussion on the FAC page seems to lean towards having an elegant sufficiency rather than an overabundance of references. I put four in more through paranoia that some CAM wingnut would demand more evidence for such a general statement (they can never have enough evidence to convince them they're wrong), but that hasn't materialised. Apart from anything else, Shermer is the only one of those references I don't own, and I returned it to the friend who lent it to me before I edited the article, so looking it up would be more trouble than it's worth!Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation bias on Noble Prize
Hi, this is nucleophilic. In a delicius irony, I was looking up confirmation bias to point out that there seemed to be a lot of that in our present discussions over on nobel prize, etc. I noticed that you are a major contributor the page. Anyway, note how questionable sources get regularly cited over the legitimate scientific literature,  which gets dismissed. Nucleophilic (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, I meant read the discussion about the Nobel prize article,  not about your article.  I thought I was being clear enough,  but forgot how concrete things can get here.  All purely subjective,  naturally,  YMMV. Nucleophilic (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Good job so far with cleanup at Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health‎. FYI, the reason the article is in such a poor state regarding citing sources that do not back up the text, and being overly promotional, and WP:NOR/primary-sources issues, is primarily due to this. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Notification
As you have commented in an ANI thread or RfC relating to User:Pedant17, this is to notify you that the same user's conduct is being discussed here, along with sanction proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks re: Confirmation bias
Your constructive, helpful and polite suggestions and encouragement with the Confirmation bias article are very much appreciated. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome; I'm glad I could be of some help. Best of luck with the FAC.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize
For a long time I have tried to get help with copyediting for the Nobel Prize; suddenly, out of nowhere you come and help. Thank you! Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your peer review! I expect to nominate Nobel Prize within the nearest days to FA :) Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the Confirmation bias on FAC! Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 10:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, if possible please take a look at Peer review/Nobel Prize/archive2. A slight disagreement has arisen about the ""On rare occasions, the prize committees have missed entire previous bodies of work " part. I would be grateful if you could take a look, cheers Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 08:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a comment request there as well now and will try to get an admin to comment on the dispute if possible. I think we should not report him unless a comment request will not help either. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey again! According to the recommendation of another editor I continued the discussion at Talk:Nobel Prize (see comments there). Could you add a short oppose or support there? Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help on the FA nom of Nobel Prize! I have just "finished" a new section called "First prizes." Could you help me with copy-editing it? Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 07:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

10% of brain myth
Nice one! - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Perception
Dear Martin, since you helped with a revert to the article a short while ago, I would be glad if you also took a look at the recent changes if you have the capacity. Thanks, and all the best, --Morton Shumway (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC).
 * You were already on it ^^. Best, --Morton Shumway (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC).

Re your task list
Under your task list for the project is the Developmental psychology article. I think it might be possible to arrange a university developmental psychology department to work on it as a project. There's already an example of this somewhere. I'll keep you posted. Fainites barley scribs 15:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Elliot Aronson
Hello. Earlier in the month you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. ). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences &amp;  Windows  19:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Volokh
Have you seen that the really good confirmation bias article inspired post on the The Volokh Conspiracy? Thought I'd let you know in case you weren't aware. Best Hekerui (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation Bias

 * Congrats MP. Fainites barley scribs 22:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, excellent work. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, nice work. I hope (trust) that, like me, you are fan of the work of this guy and this one? To me their work was a real revelation. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Psychology Barnstar

 * Thanks for all the work on confirmation bias.--81.96.190.135 (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this your first time on the main page, Martin? Woo hoo! Aren't we having fun now? (I saw the talk page.) --Moni3 (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I, too, wanted to thank you for your excellent work on confirmation bias. Please keep up the hard work; it is greatly appreciated. Remember (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Aw shucks, everyone. Thanks so much for the compliments (and of course for the improvements to the article). Confirmation bias is so far my only GA, FA or TFA, but it feels great and I feel inspired towards similar work on more articles, especially in psychology. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear sir. It appears you're actually editing the Rorschach test article, rather than simply arguing about it on the talk page! Thank you! – xeno talk  20:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks muchly for the shiny award! (Though the Rudolph Wolters accolade is undeserved as psychology he is not). As you can see I have really concentrated in one main area. Attachment disorder and Maternal deprivation are GA's I'd like to get to FA one day. Attachment measures, Bowlby, Attachment-based therapy etc etc all need more TLC. Attachment therapy did briefly get to GA but was savaged within hours of doing so. It's such a controversial subject that raises such deep feelings I doubt it will ever get to FA. In fact, thinking about it I'm not sure if any articles on controversial pseudosciences have reached FA. You have been doing sterling work on bringing more sense and order to psychology. Sorely needed. It is very relieving. I noticed someone already gave you a Shiny for it but you are still much appreciated.Fainites barley scribs 08:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just noticed your stub on "Mistakes Were Made But Not By Me". Great read isn't it.Fainites barley scribs 08:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection?
If you like, I can temporarily semi-protect this page to put a halt to this disruptive sockpuppetry. —DoRD (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer but I'll try to do without for now. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

on 'cognitive dissonance' and 'self-fulfiling prophecy'
It shows that you have contributed to a good portion of the pages Cognitive dissonance and Self-fulfilling prophecy. So you may be a right person to whom a question about these concepts can be directed. As the both concepts are often used interchangeably, qthe question is what differentiates or mediates the both concepts. Is it ‘premeditation’? If yes, the problem between these two concepts is then there isn’t any self-fulfilling prophesy in the absence of such coordination (when premeditation fails), which is just the state of 'cognitive dissonance'. Correct? Mr.Bitpart (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I used the ‘premise of study’ link as a context deixis for the missing element that I didn’t understand and that to detail the presuppositions that are still subtle between these concepts (as for their theories), which is otherwise too broad for explanation or to understand the truthbearers (propositions) as to their premises, including the link that I attached is just shedding light on a otherwise-puzzling normal behavior in a big way.


 * It makes more sense now, Martin. Thanks for the reply.


 * Because the theory of ‘cognitive dissonance’ proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by the way of changing their beliefs to confirm dissonance less painful if predictions become failures, and while ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ theory also proposes that people having the same motivational drive (though not exclusively against dissonance--while positive aspects are possible), my question was whether a person’s behavior in both cases (in the cases for reducing dissonance) can be referred as ‘premeditation’ (e.g., dissonance can also lead to a behavior of confirmation bias, and the behavior of confirmation bias can lead to self-fulfilling prophecy (though prophecies of positive aspects are possible).    Mr.Bitpart (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: pages you might like
Hey. We were editing about Germ Theory in Talk:Science. Anyway, your user page is fascinating - but I knew I just had to message when I saw "Choice Blindness" mentioned in (your?) article on the introspection illusion. I could use as critical an eye as you can spare on a page you will find very interesting: Neuroscience of free will.-Tesseract2 (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good word
Many thanks for the encouraging word - nice to feel one is on some sort of team, however loose-knit! My personal kick is fixing up ramshackle articles, mainly psychology: I have currently got my sights on my biggest challenge yet (described by one reader on its Talk page as the worst he had read on Wiki!). Not quite ready for it yet, still in training, sidling towards it crabwise, but looking forward to the big showdown....! Jacobisq (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

UK IRC community meeting
Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see Community_IRC_meetings


 * Many Thanks
 * Joseph Seddon


 * User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Perception
(Sarcasticly) of course. The diagram of the box and cup are so much more interesting ! Alan347 (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Perception
Thanks. The reason I'm so much emphatic is that I'm so sad to see such a reductionist approach to perception as to immediately treat it under its physical attribution when in fact perception is so much broader then that. I was happy to read further on in the article the reference to the psychological perception. However I really think Fludd has to offer a holistic model that explains this. Please note that Fludd's diagram was already available in the article perception prior to any of my edits. I only put in the description. Alan347 (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for signing the Online Ambassador interest list. We're gearing up for the next term right now, and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program will be supporting considerably more courses, with considerably more student activity... possibly upwards of 500 students who will need mentors.

If you're still interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.

It sounds like you're also interested in the Campus Ambassador part of the program. You should get in touch with User:Sadads if you haven't already. He's going to be working with Wikimedia UK in the coming months to get the ambassador program going in the UK.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

no more blanket edit me please
This it is to say that you should stop from all your vandal she edits on the pages of which you have not accounting and do not explain in the particular from the precognition. She is more to be the lady wikipedia when you she do not hold to a full bullet from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.23.11.235 (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Anon IP: Your edits are vandalistic and I have placed two warniings on your talk page. Stop it or get blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your quality improvement work, to the article, Bare-faced Messiah. Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks: more to come. ;) MartinPoulter (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Message
Hi. I have written to you at Talk:Requiem for a Species/GA1. Johnfos (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Humanism (life stance)
Hi Martin. I'm not happy. What do you think should be done, if anything? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The deleted article is here. I'll have a go at merging relevant content into Secular humanism, I think - the problem may be to avoid over-reliance on non-independent (BHA etc.) sources.  All advice welcome!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology
This article needs attention from editors with good knowledge of mainstream psychology.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A Journey
Just to drop you a line, I've nominated the article at FAC. Any comments would be very much appreciated! Thanks, wacky  wace  19:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert T. Craig (scholar)
I wrote Robert T. Craig (scholar) as my first BLP and am looking for feedback from other editors. Since you are familiar with both BLP and higher academic work I was wondering if you could take a look and comment on the article, or help out if you have the time.Coffeepusher (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuals Anonymous GA
Hi Martin... I just want to let you know that I haven't forgotten about this article, and I have noticed the flurry of recent activity. Unfortunately, I haven't been in a position to do much work on it. My last two weeks have invovled major surgery and a cancer diagnosis for my dog which has chewed up a lot of time and almost all of my energy. Consequently I have felt unable to wade into the article and work on it in a suitably professional manner. I hope to get back to it shortly, but in the meantime if you feel the need to act I will understand. Regards, EdChem (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, Ed. I've failed it for now, but I would still like to see it get through GA and think it's a feasible goal. I don't suspect I'll be allowed to review it again, but I'll keep watch on the article. If you are interested in my feedback on future revisions, and I might not have seen it, I don't mind being asked here for my perspective. Best wishes, MartinPoulter 13:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification, and your offer. I will work on it when I get the chance and will likely ask your opinion before a re-nomination.  EdChem 13:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia (physical) banner availability for stand at show?
I wonder if you can help. (I know we've not yet met, but I believe you know my wife in connection with WP:SKEPTICS.) As part of WP:RISCOS, I may wish to have a Wikipedia stand at a Wakefield computer show in April. This would be in order to encourage new members and also serve as an introduction to Wikipedia. If we go ahead with this, is there any sort of physial banner or other such material available for loan which could be taken along? I've had a look at Banners and buttons, but that's web banners. I've also considered approaching the 2 UK contacts listed at the Wikimedia Foundation, but haven't yet done so. If you can please give any advice or assistance, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much. --trevj (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy photo
Hi Martin, I sent the pic to your email address on Thursday pm. I can send again if needed.&mdash; Rod talk 10:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Check your email - just sent. It's a v large file so may have triggered a spam filter or something.&mdash; Rod talk 19:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I sent it to infobomb at gmail.com - don't know why it didn't get through. Are you happy for it to be public domain? if so I'll put it on commons&mdash; Rod talk 09:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Will this do File:Martin Poulter with Jimmy Wales.JPG - I suspect cropping etc needed.&mdash; Rod talk 10:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to fit a face to the name at sciencefocus.com .. and some sensible words too! It's also good to see some sense added to so many psychology articles. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

LRH SF
I haven't had time to follow the FAC of LRH at all, but I will try to look over the article and review it if I get time. However, I am posting here just to let you know that I have a fairly good library of obscure science fiction sources, and if you need anything sourced -- fact or opinion -- regarding LRH's science fiction career, I can probably help. Good luck with the FAC; it's no doubt going to be time consuming, just because of the nature of the topic, but I wish you the best. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, I just uploaded File:Cartier Fear illo Unknown July 1940.jpg, which is public domain. It was an illustration used for Hubbard's "Fear" in the July 1940 Unknown; your writing section doesn't current have a picture, so I thought you might be interested. Mike Christie (talk – library) 04:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! I will add it when I get more time. If you have any refs on what LRH's peers thought of his writing, that could very well be useful. There's some material on this topic already in the article, but I'd be interested in anything additional you can dig up. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have something that might be useful; I'll post to the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

LRH FA review
I have completed my inspection of all sources and content. Pending two last things at the Review page. (one minor, one major) I'll be ready to support certifying its passing of FA requirements The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Happiness tag
You recently criticized my removal of a NPOV tag on the Happiness page. I have since opened discussion at Talk:Happiness to invite anyone to make the justifications for that tag explicit. If you have any suggestions, please put them there so we can work on them. If no one comments, then I will assume as I did before (and explained at the time of the tag's removal) that it is a dead tag. I explained, not just that it is uglier than a clean page, but that it is more importantly old and regarding issues that have been resolved, except that no one took the tag down. Thanks.-Tesseract2 (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

L Ron Hubbard
Martin, I left two notes at the FAC; minor things, but if you could give them your attention, that would be appreciated. Am keeping fingers crossed that you can make it by March 13; it will make a great TFA. -- JN 466  03:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Big thanks
You are most welcome. I hope you are doing well. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project
Hi. Just letting you know that I started review for New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project here. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have passed the article for Good Article status, with Cirt fixing the problems I addressed in the talk page. GamerPro64 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed this edit you made and I would like to thank you for it since I forgot to do that. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

 * Aw, this makes my day! MartinPoulter (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

L. Ron
Hey Martin. I noticed that L. Ron Hubbard is gonna be on the main page on Sunday. I think you're gonna need this. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Your good health! MartinPoulter (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 13, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/March 13, 2011. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 05:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 

L. Ron Hubbard (1911–1986) was an American pulp fiction author turned religious leader who founded the Church of Scientology. After establishing a career as a writer of pulp fiction, becoming best known for his science fiction and fantasy stories, he developed a self-help system called Dianetics which was first published in 1950. He subsequently developed his ideas into a wide-ranging set of doctrines and rituals as part of a new religious movement that he called Scientology. His writings became the guiding texts for the Church of Scientology and a number of affiliated organizations that address such diverse topics as business administration, literacy and drug rehabilitation. The Church of Scientology depicts Hubbard in hagiographic terms, drawing on his legacy as its ultimate source of doctrine and legitimacy. His critics have characterized him as a liar, a charlatan and a madman, and many of his autobiographical statements have been proven to be fictitious. (more...)

Participants for Bristol Wiki Media academy thing
Martin, Could you send me the spreadsheet of attendees or let me know the sorts of individuals/organisations attending so I can select an FA to talk about which is relevant to their interests. The only Bristol one really is Buildings and architecture of Bristol but not really a good example of collaboration as I did 90% of that one. How about Sweet Track which developed as a result of the BM GLAM promotion? or Somerset Levels which I hope may be an FA by next week (of course if you wanted to review it that would be great). The programme says WikiProject Bristol "as an example of directed quality improvement" - I'm not quite sure what the "directed" means here could we say collaborative? Also could I use WikiProject Somerset instead as it has more FAs etc & I'm more closely involved in that one. Do you have User talk:Bimcurator on your list - curator of Bristol Industrial Museum?&mdash; Rod talk 17:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Avoid unnecessary hatnotes
Please note in the future not to add unnecessary hatnotes, as you did on Set (computer science), per WP:NAMB. --Cyber cobra (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, wasn't aware of that policy. Have now removed a few of these that I've added. Thanks,

Psychology barnstar
Hi, I see you added a WP:BARNSTAR, however there was no consensus to add it as far as I know. Quoting "If you would like a barnstar to be added to the list, please discuss it at WikiProject Wikipedia Awards talk page. Please don't add it without a consensus! Barnstars without consensus will be removed." Please discuss the addition first, thanks. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

didn't
I'm sorry, I didn't realize. I will do as you suggested. Lavinia Wilhelmine (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Jacobisq
To draw your attention to the psychology work of User:Jacobisq, IMO his contribution to Wikipedia is stunning and invaluable. He has worked on Wikipedia for about 9 months almost daily, typically beefing up a whole range of psychology articles (including stubs) with good citations. I hope he can keep going as he is making major inroads in to improving psychology coverage on Wikipedia. If there were only 10 of him, psychology coverage on Wikipedia would be completely transformed in months. (You can reply here - I have this page on watch)--Penbat (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks: I was unaware of this user and I'm really impressed with his work. I will wait for the Psychology Barnstar to be accepted as "official" and then do another round of awards. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep IMO he deserves a Psychology Barnstar ten times over. Wikipedia really ought to pay him a grant to encourage his continued work beefing up many seriously deficient psychology articles. Might Wikipedia ever pay a grant to anybody ? --Penbat (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha!

 * Aw, thanks! MartinPoulter (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Many thanks for the encouragement, you've both been very generous to this newbie - very aware that I am still pretty much learning the wiki ropes....Jacobisq (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you !!
Thank you so much ! And by the way, those cookies were really delicious ! Wikipedia's amazing, but being a Wikipedian is more exciting. That's what I think. Thank you so very much for treating me very well !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharathpv 9 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Lynn McTaggart edit
Hi Martin and thanks for your good faith edits on the Lynn McTaggart article and for all that you do to improve Wikipedia. In this case however, I reverted your edit based on WP:ALLEGED and WP:CLAIM. I think if you review those WP guidelines you will agree that the current text is compliant. However to address your concern I have made it clear in the text that McTaggart's cure is self reported and only in reference to her own personal experience. I know no one likes to be reverted so I thought I'd post on your page. All the best! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Your remark
Regarding your remark on MaxR's talk page: Very good, I'll adapt to that. Lavinia Wilhelmine (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for barnstar. It is hugely appreciated. I don't claim that the bullying/abuse/etc articles are currently anywhere near perfect but they are vastly better than the pitiful state they were in a few years back thanks to my efforts. It is information fundamental to human nature that is poorly understood by most of the population and rarely covered in an objective way in the media. It is satisfying that i have done my bit to help change that and also very educational and validating for myself.--Penbat (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please take down your allegation
Please take down the allegation you made here. It is blatantly untrue. I have already tried to contact you by various means. (Edward Buckner) 109.148.152.127 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What allegation?Jasper Deng (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The allegation that I have claimed to be mentally ill. Follow the link. This is an outrageous slur. 109.148.152.127 (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin listen very closely.
Now first of all, i'm adding this page and you're deleting it for ZERO good reasons. Why? well, first of all this page was here for almost 3 weeks and now you deside to delete it?

second, the content on the page and website is 100 times better than the crap there is on wikipedia, so consider this a favor.

Third, i know it's nofollow, but some people love to give value to others for no reason. Don't believe me? look at the website, it's not promotional and it's not selling anything. and if i won't post the link here, THOUSANDS of others will.

Now i'm going to post it again, because it's awesome material, WAY better than all the junk that the page links to on the matter of self-esteem.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.41.184 (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please continue this discussion at Talk:Self-esteem. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your help in cleaning up the Social identity Wikipedia entry (as well as your general support of the work done within our course)! I was unaware that a shortcut existed to avoid duplicate references and will now be able to make use of it as I continue cleaning up the article/in future Wikipedia contributions. Tabularasasm (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Travis S. Tarrants
Hello we are writing about your comments on Travis S. Tarrants. We are working to improve his page. We are new to wikipedia so please be patient with us. Plus we are not computer experts. We do have more references to put on the page. We know the references we have put up so far are just websites but we have tried several times to make them more specific resources but have failed. Once we learn HOW to do them correctly there will be more references and they will be more specific. This is not a self promotion and has not been copied and pasted. We have gathered this information about Travis from websites or newspaper, radio and television interviews he has given. Again please be patient with us as we continue to improve and add to this site. Thank You99.14.209.19 (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've no idea who this is. Did you send this message to the right person? MartinPoulter (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for constructive criticism in psychology articles
Martin, I wanted thank you for all the effort you put in on the pages my students worked on. Through your feedback, they are learning that Wikipedia is indeed a collaborative activity. In addition to getting benefit from the substantive advice you've given them, they have been encouraged and motivated simply because someone has noticed their work and thought it important enough to comment on. Robertekraut (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Social Psychology
Hi Martin. Any rationale for downgrading social psychology to a C rating? It seems like it's in better shape than most C articles I've seen. I'm going to put it back at a B, but let's discuss this on the talk page if you have specific criticisms or suggestions. Best regards, Jcbutler (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I just noticed the citation requests in the article. I'll look for some additional references in these areas. --Jcbutler (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Article on Eleanor Maccoby
Firstly, many thanks for the notification of What You Can Do to Help at Wikipedia: WikiProject Psychology. I saw there was a request for an article on Eleanor Maccoby there, and I have now created one. However, as I admit on the talk page of the article, developmental psychology is not my field, so the article is a mess at present. Does any one Wikipedia: WikiProject Psychology know enough about Maccoby to expand the article? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your work in support of the project- it's much appreciated. I can't help with developmental articles myself: the Talk page of the Wikiproject is the right place for this request. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! For being welcoming to newcomers.
Hi Martin, thanks for the welcome cookies and for the helpful edits to the Onboarding page. They're greatly appreciated as all four of us (the iOParty team, robertpersaud and I) are all newcomers to Wikipedia. Have a great day! Brianrangell (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Martin! I too feel very warm about being greeted as a newcomer! It's great to start feeling part of the team and such original cookies inspire me! Irina Pertsel (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks
Many thanks for putting up the tag to say that the article on Eleanor Maccoby is under the auspices of WikiProject Psychology. Great news - I am also impressed by how quickly the WikiProject group put the stub and low importance tags there, too. I am aware that Maccoby's contributions are outside my main fields in psychology, so if you know of any Wikipedia: WikiProject psychology members who know about her, perhaps you could invite them to expand the article. Again, many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you also for saying that All in the Mind is now under the auspices of Wikipedia: WikiProject Psychology. You seem to be a star and key player of that WikiProject group! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Gent Strazimiri
Hi, can you review The GA nominee --Vinie007 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this isn't in my area. Best of luck with it, MartinPoulter (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Good article review begun (Talk:Social identity/GA1)
Per the heading, I've begun the good article review at Talk:Social identity/GA1. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 03:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! MartinPoulter (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Bristol Wiki Academy
Thanks for the (virtual) beer. How did the Bristol Wiki Academy go today? Sorry I couldn't be with you in person.&mdash; Rod talk 19:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well indeed thanks. A small but packed room: they only took their first steps in wiki-editing, but there was a lot of enthusiasm and understanding for the wider social significance of the Wikimedia projects. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you look into this?
Gerry Armstrong (activist) has posted a rather lengthy statement at the L Ron Hubbard talk page. I am trying to read through it all but am having a bit of hard time understanding with clarity what the issues are. Would you mind assisting Gerry since you took the lead on the recent FA review? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

hey, coauthor!
Good to see you here. Cheers and thanks for getting us in CHEER some time back. Coauthoring's easier, here. -- Econterms (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
Hi Martin: I've been meaning to write for days to thank you for the note you left on my talk page, letting me know that I'd mistaken Andy's comments to Snowman as being directed to me. I'd already read Andy's note, where he had cleared that up, but also appreciate your efforts to smooth things over. Dust has settled and we've all moved on. I hope things continue to go well with the project. MeegsC | Talk 02:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding confirmation bias
Hi Dr. Poulter, Thanks for your excellent work on the confirmation bias article. In a response to me you wrote "In order to reflect up-to-date sources, we can't just rely on Wason's original definition. The definition used by the article comes from a recent university-level textbook. Other sources explicitly mention assimilation and perseverance as phenomena arising from conf. bias"

I was wondering what source you talking about specifically (Risen and Gilovech, 2007?). Also if you know of any great up to date sources regarding the confirmation bias, I would love to read them.

Thanks, Jeff

P.S. I'm not sure if it was there prior or added following my inquiry but I noticed there is a brief line suggesting that some researchers use it only to refer to the seeking of confirmatory information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrotman (talk • contribs) 07:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Knowle West, Bristol
Hi Martin. I have nominated this for peer review at Peer review/Knowle West, Bristol/archive1 as I would like to take it to WP:FAC. Any comments that would help achieve this will be most welcome. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Very useful day so far!
--RGForbes (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Enjoying talk. Thank you.--Alex Ruislip (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

September 1st meeting at the IOP
Hello Martin

Thanks for organising the meeting last thursday. I got a 3-year reader's pass at the British Library after the meeting. I was surprisd that Wikipedia and the British Library do not have tghis as an automatic agreement, though they were happy to help.

Thank you 17:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunstand123 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Martin,
 * Thank you for your note - I certainly found the meeting rewarding and pending work commitments, would be happy to assist in similar meetings.
 * Regards Martinvl (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin !

At the IOP meeting I said I would write to you with some further comments about some of the "electricity" pages on Wikipedia (in particular that about "voltage"). In the event, I've got rather busy. So I'll get back to you some other time, probably not soon.

Regards

Richard RGForbes (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Just testing
Hello Martin!

Elefunkie (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Bristol Wiki Academy 2
Hi Martin

Here I am. Thanks for organising this. --HLuna70 (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Percept
Hello, I noticed that back in March you redirected Percept to Perception. I am hoping to resolve the incomplete dab (see WP:INCDAB) at Percept (computing) and would appreciate some feedback from someone more familiar with the subject matter. Please have a look at Talk:Percept (computing). Thanks, France 3470   ( talk ) 16:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Knowle West, Bristol
Hi Martin. The above is now at WP:FAC. I would appreciate any comments/support that you may care to offer at Featured article candidates/Knowle West, Bristol/archive1. Tx. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful comments in the FAC. Much appreciated. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A Journey
Thanks for correcting the error. I hit the wrong key when moving the category but thought I had corrected it. Obviously not and I should have checked. Malcolma (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Bristol Girl Geeks
Thanks for the cake Z303 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

and a

Z303 (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Oxford Training
Hello.

Hi Martin, what did you have for breakfast?--BerriFSD (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by KittyHart (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

HELLO
hi martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwinn24 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Martin, thank's for today's training! --Maryamomidi (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Other users at the session:
 * User_talk:Iremkk
 * User talk:Shvarova
 * User_talk:Manav_Bhushan
 * User_talk:Nautilus1982
 * Here's the list

MartinPoulter (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the Wikipedia training session.
Hi Martin,

It was really very interesting to attend the training session. I'm taking care of the Spanish section of the Free Speech Debate (FSD). Thanks for answering all our questions.

Best,

Marina Fsdspanish (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Early life of L. Ron Hubbard
Hi MartinPoulter, I stumbled across Early life of L. Ron Hubbard recently and noticed it was in pretty good shape but that its creator had retired. I saw that you had worked with its creator on another article. I'd like to try to get it to Good Article status soon since it is well-written and well-researched. I did a little tidying/polishing tonight, if you get a chance/are interested could you take a look at the article and see if you have any issues/suggestions about the article? Mark Arsten (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just going to drop you a mail, Martin, but see that you already received an earlier message. I reckon it can't hurt if we can get the sub-article to GA; I have little doubt that it's good enough, being a spin-out from the Hubbard FA. Regards. -- J N  466  16:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail
Hi Martin, I'm wondering if you got my email? I'd be grateful for a chance to have a chat before the end of this week about my grant application(s), inter alia. Could you possibly drop me a line to let me know when might be convenient? Prioryman (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Help with article for deletion discussion
Martin, The article Dimensional models of personality disordersis one written by a student in the APS Wikipedia Initiative (not from one of my classes). It is being considered for deletion on the grounds of lack of general notability. Although I am not an expert in Wikipedia policy, the topic seems notable to me, with lots of relevant scholarly and professional newsletter style references. Could you look this over and add your comments? Thanks. Bob Kraut. Robertekraut (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Martin, that article was written as part of a course project. Thirteen of us created new articles related to Personality Psychology. We're all very new to this process and have come across a lot of conflicting ideas about how to contribute to Wikipedia. One such criticism has been sources. We were told by a campus ambassador that articles in a peer-reviewed journal were acceptable as sources on Wikipedia. But we have been told that since Psychology falls under "medicine" instead of a "social science" we can only cite papers that use meta-analysis. This doesn't make sense to me or my classmates. If we can't use peer-reviewed journal articles as sources, then what is the best way to go about still contributing quality material to Wikipedia? Any ideas you could give would be greatly appreciated. Desasu11 (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with move
Hiya Martin, I was wondering if you might help me move an article in my sandbox to "affective forecasting". No23139116 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

New Rational Skepticism WikiProject member asking for look at Theosophy entry
Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns?

I'm under the gun because I've been ordered to fix the page so that it accords with my understanding of the NPOV policy. I'm happy to do that but I have a lot of work at my job. Now I've been told that I must make the changes by April 30th or the NPOV tag will be removed. I simply can't learn how to use Wikipedia as a newcomer, become familiar with all the sources, and make the edits if I must do it all by April 30th.

Can you recommend anything? Thanks much,Factseducado (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

University of Portsmouth incident
Hi there! I understand you're a contact for the UK WEP; your input would be great at Education noticeboard/Archive2. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Bare-faced Messiah expanded and nominated for GA
Hi Martin, as someone who'd done a considerable amount of work on the Bare-faced Messiah article I thought you might be interested to know that this October is the 25th anniversary of its publication. I've expanded the article considerably and nominated it for GA - I'd be interested to know if you have any comments on it. Prioryman (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help with the Harvey A. Carr article
Many thanks for making the article on Harvey A. Carr part of WikiProject Psychology. I see that you already have a Psychology Barnstar - well deserved! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Education Program extension
Hi Martin! I've issued the "Education Program staff" user access level to you so you can use the new MediaWiki extension that got launched today. We'll have some documentation out for it in the coming weeks, but you can get a feel for it by going to Special:Preferences and enabling the "My courses" link. As program staff you would need to issue the proper user access level to any other staff, volunteers, instructors, or ambassadors, which can be done at Special:UserRights. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thanks! MartinPoulter (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
VQuakr (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for initiating my talkpage
Yes. I started my journey with wikipedia a few months back. It was quite a learning experience. Thank you for initiating My TalkPage. Appreciate your time in guiding me on the way forward.... and for the welcome cookies too. Ken Georgie Mathew (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Newbie Deletion Question
Martin, Thanks for the message. I'm a Wikipedia newbie and am surprised how different the coding is from HTML. I have a question and it involves Wikipedia's "Lucy the Elephant" page. One of my first edits was to add a URL to the "External links" section of that wiki entry. A day later, I saw that that URL had been deleted by hu12. I went to hu12's page but the message essentially says "don't leave messages here. If I'm interested, I will leave a message on your Talk page." hu12 has a number of medallions on his or her page indicating he or she is an anti-spammer.

I've read the Wiki etiquette page and can't figure out why my URL would have been deleted. It wasn't spam. I authored and have maintained the world's oldest website devoted to the architectural marvel, Lucy the Elephant (http://levins.com/lucy.html) in Margate, N.J. It dates to the late 1990s. I'm a career magazine and newspaper journalist and the extensive site's content was researched and created in accordance with the standards of mainstream American journalism. The website's content is 100% relevant and informative about the subject of this particular Wiki item.

Because I'm brand new at Wikipedia edits, I don't know quite what to do. The reverting editor indicates he or she doesn't want messages. I think reasonable people would agree that the link I added to eternal links deepens the reference nature of the wiki item.

What is the best way to handle this sort of thing? HoagL (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * HoagL, External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you own; levins.com, whartonesherickmuseum.com, hadrosaurus.com and ldihealtheconomist.com. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your sites. Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding your sites and is considered  WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be Hoag Levins related only. Please do not continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia.   Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote Your sites right?  --Hu12 (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hu12, Well, yes, but that, it seems to me as a newbie, begs the question of whether it makes sense to define "improving Wikipedia" as a process that categorically bars subject authorities from contributing links to their own works of authority on a given subject. During the first 24 hours after I signed up for an account the other day I was trying to understand how Wikipedia code and structure worked. It seemed only natural to contribute those link. You've removed the one from the Hadrosaurus foulkii site that I didn't put there -- it was put up by someone else. My 1995 Hadrosaurus foulkii site was instrumental in broadening public knowledge of this important but little known fossile find. That's the reason that the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia links to my site as a resource on the discovery. Similar with the Esherick site. I was the last person to interview Wharton Esherick before his death and until recent years that unique site was the only one available online. These aren't efforts to sell a product. They are legitimate works of literature that provide meaningful insights into their subjects that only original research and reporting can bring. On the Leonard Davis Institute site of the University of Pennsylvania Wikipedia page -- I am editor of its publications department and its my job to update its descriptions and links wherever I can. There is out-of-date information there as well as links that are also out of date on the Wikipedia entry. In that instance, I was taking the first step in what will be (or would have been) a correction of things that need updating. I've been creating large web literary works since 1995 and have a good sense of what spam is and, at the same time I apologize if I overstepped Wikipedia rules, I have to honestly say that this just doesn't feel like spam to me.  It feels like someone adding subject expertise to Wikipedia items.

HoagL (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Understand that spam is defined not so much by the content of the site in this case, as it is about promotion. One of the Five fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates is neutrality and Conflict of interest isn't just a matter of profit vs. non-profit, but about self-promotion in general. Of your 5 edits you added a combination of 4 of your domains 6 times among 4 different articles. In one instance you actualy moved your own site "up" to the top of the list while adding a second domain you own. Expert, Newbie or not, these efforts were deliberate. Adding your own site is "promotion" and a conflict of interest. Links do not add content or meaning to the encyclopedia, but rather direct readers away from the project. Wikipedia's fundamental purpose is to create an encyclopedia of "content" and links do not add your expertise nor do they improve the encyclopedia itself.--Hu12 (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. Hu12, I don't agree with your last couple of sentences: relevant external links can make an article better; that's why there's an external links policy. It seems there is a case for inclusion of at least some of HoagL' pages considered on their own merits, but HoagL isn't the one to make the call, so using Talk pages to propose addition to each article is the way to go. I think it's clear from the above why the added links might be perceived as spam, but also why the abrupt deletion of a relevant link would be confusing for a new user. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Coventry Medical Wiki Workshop
Honoured that you feel my efforts with the Wiki Workshop deserve a Barnstar. Many thanks, and thanks for participating in the event! Hope to be able to organise more medical wiki meetings in the future Sharkli (talk - contribs) 15:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Martin - Good to meet you yesterday. Thanks for all your work. Cheers, —MistyMorn (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the talkpage message, Martin. Of course I would be happy to participate in future events. JFW &#124; T@lk  20:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the cookies, that was a nice thought. Have one yourself :) Taknaran (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Training Event
Hello. Hope you are enjoying giving the training event! --Chriscb77 (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Good work on the training session. Kitten sez hi.

—Tom Morris (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC) 

training day
no it's awful. can i go home yet? ;-p --Ambrouk (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Rollback
Given that you are able to work out what vandalism is, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

For some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! —Tom Morris (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you made the move, will you please move the Talk archives?
at List of cognitive biases? The "discussion" to which you refer in your move edit summary seems to have gone missing... --Lexein (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now fixed. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review for Self-categorization theory
Hi there. Would you be willing to help out and/or take over the GA Review for Self-categorization theory? I saw you over there at the article tagging stuff and realized you have a good deal of expertise in this area. Either way, no worries, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Martin. Thanks for giving some of your attention to the SCT page. I wanted to try and seek some clarification on some of the concerns you raised so that I might be able to address them. For instance, quite a few of the tags you added were of the and  variety. Invariably the "who" is the authors of the associated reference. I did not use their names in the text as I did not think that this was critical to the points and did want to clutter up the content. I could simply add in the names, but in my mind it is sufficient to provide a reference for the statement. In that way the name of the person making the claims is available for anyone who is interested, but does not distract from the point for a non-social psychological audience (I.e. I don’t think the names Turner, McGarty or Bruner will mean much to most of the article audience). Anyway, if you have a chance I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Cheers Andrew (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably best in this case to indeed add the authors of the associated reference directly into the prose text as well as in the cited reference note. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi all. I have followed this up on the SCT talk page. Cheers Andrew (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)