User talk:MartinHarper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RickK (talk | contribs) at 06:26, 27 September 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

My name is Martin, and I refactor my talk page

Hi, Martin!

Stuff written here could end up anywhere. In particular, my distaste for MeatBall:ForestFires, bad trolls, and spam applies doubly here. Also, I summarise stuff. If my summaries are inaccurate, fix them!

Unsigned stuff is probably written by me

See also: user talk:MyRedDice/refactoring

Praise for...

Helping my inner glow:

Top Trolls

All accidental, I assure y'all

Best of old summaries

  • Welcome! --Camembert
  • Welcome! --Ed Poor
  • (etc - Wikipedia is quite welcoming... once it notices you)
  • "Equal opportunity roasting place" -ROFL 'Vert
    • I enjoy a well-executed troll, but would prefer to avoid seeing one executed
  • There is a certain level of micro-management beyond which things become unacceptable. Tannin
  • do you know a lot of vicars? Nevilley
    • Yes, but I know more tarts.

Summarised talk

  • Elizabeth II has two images, only one of which has been stolen STÓD/ÉÍRE
    • The Queen is poorer following my cockup
  • But does she edit Wikipedia? STÓD/ÉÍRE 22:53 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • I forgot to update my age on my home page...
    • when you get older...you even forget how old you are, and need to count... User:anthere
      • When you get older still, you forget how to count...
  • Let it wash around you like water around a rock -º¡º
    • One cannot learn about filth without touching the mire Martin
  • "sophomore year" and "second year" - aren't they simply difference between the dialects? --Menchi 08:58 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • For those not used to american educative peculiarities, second year means something where Sophomore does not --Ant
  • International English then? --Menchi 10:49 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
    • If there is an international term available, let us use it.
  • I see you are careful with my complaint on wikipedia:annoying users. In this particular instance, do whatever.Tannin
    • I was picking the low-hanging fruit
  • Sorry about the Firehouse thing --mav
    • totally no worries
  • Do you think Puchland is encyclopedia material?--Eloquence 17:48 15 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm agnostic. There is no Jimbo Wales.
  • Mbecker == MB == Mbecker. MB 00:44 17 May 2003 (UTC)
    • In this particular instance, I was aware.
  • What do you think we should do about the copyright violation in the edit history? Ams80 15:46 18 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Check meta:Wikipedia and copyright issues, about halfway down, which starts "Is it necessary that the copyrighted text entirely disappear [...] or can it stay in the history?". Also, we delete copyright violations for reasons of quality control, not legal paranoia.
  • please undelete the articles on Wikipedia:votes for undeletion. --Anthere
    • Done. Aren't you a sysop?
  • I do not wish to be a sysop and forget my humility. Perhaps in time. -- Anthere
    • You're right: I can summarise that in fifteen words... :)
      • I finally asked to be a sysop. Unhappy. Anthere 05:28 15 Jun 2003 (UTC) (signing for once)
  • Good evening Martin-e. --Anther
    • You mean "Lucinda"... or "Lucy" :)
  • On the French Wikipedia, we look at the "Académie Française" and the "encyclopédie Larousse". On the English Wikipedia, we look at google. In the end, what makes a word or a notion "accepted" on the en, is not its real use but it being known by google. It would be interesting one day to list differences existing between each wiki. When I wrote QoI (oct or november I think), I remember distinctly there were only 3 references in google in french, and say around 20 worldwide for "QoI fungicides". 6 months later, there are about 200. Quite understandable: last fall had the first numerous observations of resistance. --Anthere
  • Stevertigo thinks she's funny... or Borat. In truth, neither ;-)
  • Thanks for your help with Kils/Viking. MB 07:30 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I doubt I was helpful.


  • You helped hook me on wikipedia! Nelson
    • Thanks, skyfaller :)
  • I'm just going nuts seeing the psuedo-scientific, "anti-scientism" and stereotype feeding junk people are putting here. -- Rotem Dan 10:18 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Do you cover the world in leather to make your feet comfortable?
  • I sometimes have the false illusion that no one agrees with me. Rotem Dan 12:15 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Perhaps there are times of openness, such as when flowers want to get fertilized, and times of protection, nurturing the growing fruit ? (anthere)
  • You behaved admirably Oliver. If only every Wikipedian behaved as you do when in a bad mood, then this'd be a nicer place... :)
    • In that case, I'll resist the urge to complain about you not signing the message I'm currently replying to... ;) -- Oliver P. 11:47 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • "Unsigned stuff is probably written by me"
  • Otherwise, it is by me
    • Conversations between Martin and Anthere are my worst nightmare. ;) -- Oliver P. 14:15 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Martin is MyRedDice. :-) Evercat 19:40 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Would that it were that simple...
  • interesting piece you wrote about eventualism v. immediatism LittleDan 00:49 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • An idle piece of whimsy
  • Abusively delete pages... nah, I'll pick u a beer or two (anthere)
    • *giggle* :)
  • yes, of course are we giving you the right to use our images! - Vikings 23:03 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • I love the timeline on User talk:Zoe. It reads like a detective's report on some horrific airplane crash, or something. :-) Evercat 01:38 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)


  • Interesting results! Where is David Dimbleby when you need him? :-) FearÉIREANN 10:08 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Do you have some sort of IM client? --Dante Alighieri 19:33 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Nope
  • observe my edit summaries... Pizza Puzzle
    • Looks good, but [advice]


  • I am fighting against my "judéo chrétienne" education. Elk
    • My response to suffering is more Buddhist in style. Martin 10:05 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • you have been nominated for a more "formal" sysophood. --Dante Alighieri 07:36 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • sweet, but not something I was after.
  • I thought your comment on 2003 in sports was quite funny really. Lisiate 23:13 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • is there really a policy of reverting everything if it's discovered that a user is an alias for a hard-banned user? user:Evercat 23:16 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • GREAT idea - no personal attack. Wikilove. (anthere)
  • Thanks for going through the Village Pump archives and putting comments in context. --Eloquence 19:47 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • we should be able to have articles on dimensionaless orders of magnitude such as 1 E6. The Anome
    • nice idea :) Martin 00:14, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • I need any reference to what guidelines exist on edit wars and page protection. (Anthere)
  • my raelien left in disgust - the triumph of the mob (anthere)
  • I don't know whether DW's range of shared IPs are still blocked. FearÉIREANN
  • you have been disambiguating Michael Collins (Jtdirl)
    • Not for months.
  • Camembert said, "Its not worth the trouble" after 172 told him to stop foaming at the mouth. Why is a sysop allowed to go around attacking anyone who disagrees with him? Pizza Puzzle
    • Treasures abound, as far as the eye can see. Why does the dragon's hoard seem the most attractive?
  • Martin, I only protected the page temporarily to... yada, yada, yada FearÉIREANN 15:21 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't question your motives, Jtdirl, but your action is at variance with our current recommendations.
  • I compiled this on PP. Evercat 01:03, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • I will now be able to make an informed decision.
  • I've noticed you editing Daniel C. Boyer... MB
    • I find out very attractive. Will you go to bed with me? (bad musical reference, sorry)


  • I removed Boyer's publisher info - it was misleading. Kat 18:45, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • But counteracted by the e-Bay info.
  • If Boyer attacks reasonable presumptions, what can we do? Kat 19:12, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Ignore him?
  • Are there clear rules on deleting redirects? MB 20:58, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)
    • We used to have unclear rules - but now we have clearly disputed rules.
  • I look at my user page for replies to my messages. MB
    • If you look hard enough in the wrong place, you will see things that are not there.
  • We're currently looking for speakers for the next Wizards of OS conference in Berlin, in April 2004. Could you speak on h2g2 vs Wikipedia?
    • I don't know.
  • I think the reasons for deletion far outweigh reasons for keeping. MB 21:47, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't.
  • Why don't you just unblank those portions that you feel are verified? Kat 22:33, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Why don't you just blank those portions you feel are unverified? ;-)
  • You missed the point. Kat 23:30, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Your point is that if Boyer has an article, why can't you?
  • No. The page was patent nonsense. Kat 23:51, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • My opinion about AKFD hasn't changed. Koyaanis Qatsi 19:24, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • What was the resolution to the AKFD nonsense? -戴&#30505sv 21:02, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • We were resolved to be unresolved
  • I didn't know that there was going to be an additional vote. LDan 16:45, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Better than a coup d'etat.
  • What's this with wiki-wolves? Koyaanis Qatsi 21:31, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • They devour all things, howling as they go.
  • Spam from the legion of trolls deleted.
  • Was your foolishness important enough to summarise?
    • No, but I didn't want to remove material unfavorable to myself. Kat 20:20, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • sv spam deleted
  • I undeleted Adolf Hitlier as you requested, master. Angela 23:21, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • You are a most pleasing slave.
  • Very interesting comment from Alex756 regarding invariant sections, the GFDL, and the edit warning - moved and responded at User talk:Alex756 - people interested in Wikipedia copyrights would do well to read.
  • You are 24 Martin ? Ant
    • J'ai 24 ans, mais je ne suis pas 24.
  • What was the conclusion over Daniel matter ? Ant
  • We should not rely on the self-righteous Meatballers to run things here. EofT
    • Neither should we ignore what they have to say.
  • Messy RK vs EofT content deleted. Thanks to EofT for informing me, Uncle Ed for his compliment, Stevertigo and anthere for their sysop powers.
  • discussion to Wikipedia:Community case RK
  • Obscenities on Talk Israel: See Jtdirl's explanation on Talk:Israel, and my response there.
  • Please could you leave at least a summary of the Brazil rocket thing on the pump? -- Tarquin 13:56, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Martin, I am likely mere minutes away from being banned for resisting the rule of RK. I hope we wikimeet again. If you see the Buddha on the wiki... well you know. --EofT
    • Engage him in edit war?
  • a light hearted attempt at humour by --Dante Alighieri 23:04, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC) on the WikiEN-l. Meets with my approval.
  • Wish you were french. Anthere
    • I save my wishes for greater transformations.

New talk

Terrible abuse of my sysop powers I know :)

It was quite annoying seeing my name in red everywhere. I was too much of a Wikipediholic to stay away. Angela

  • help with the Wikipedia:Sysop reading list and Wikipedia:List_of_central_issues EofT
    • Your edits in this area are less useful than those elsewhere.
      • Hmm, then, maybe your edits are what is required? Judging by the plain ignorance of central issues by many people including those who are trying to stand for "fairness" and "process", I beg to differ. If we had just a dozen people who were actually conversant in the theory of these central issues required to run an encyclopedia, and a hundred sysops who could tell propaganda techniques from politically motivated vandalism from personality conflict, we would have few or none of the troubles we have run into recently, and a redistributable 1.0 would be a foregone conclusion. But as you wish. EofT

Martin,

I have been following the conversation on the mailing list. The criticisms of you there are particularly unfair. Persevere.

Thanks Kat :)

Since you are familiar with MFC and hence Windows, I thought you might be interested to know that I have a mirror set up in my lab running XP, with Apache, MySQL, PHP, Wikipedia, and the latest dump from the meta. It works well and took surprisingly little tinkering given that the whole system was developed for Linux. I had to carve up some of the Wikipedia source to work around a PHP bug involving detection of repeated include files in the case-schizophrenic NTFS file system. Perhaps I'll post my notes somewhere.

Kat 01:42, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Surprising. Don't post them on my behalf - I'm not planning to have Wikipedia in the short term - but long term I might well be interested. :)

Hello Martin. I got your message, and am loading up (trying to) the restore list now. Id also like a word with you in private. utilitymuffinresearch2 AT yahoo POT com -戴&#30505sv 23:33, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

ethics dispute

Talk:ethics contains (most recently) a dispute between a troll and RK. The last two paragraphs added may be of great interest to you, as they document yet another situation where an overt POV is being pushed in various overt and subtle ways. Hard yet to know whether the deletions/insertions constitute stupidity or some less common disease. This may be about to become another RK edit war.

Page protection

Could you act as a neutral mediator for the page Medical analysis of circumcision? An anonymous user is trying to turn this page, and circumcision, into a pro-circumcision propaganda page. To this end, he has removed studies and citations which he did not like, source dumped large amounts of material from pro-circumcision websites, added a list of circumcised people to prove that circumcision is associated with intelligence, claimed that circumcision is linked to homosexual beliefs etc. I have explained specifically why I have not integrated certain of his edits on Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision, but he just keeps reverting to his revision instead of discussing his changes. At this point, I think it would make most sense to protect either my last revision (which integrates those edits from him which I consider neutral) or the one before he started editing the page, in order to make him discuss his proposed changes. I would of course refrain from editing the page as long as it is protected, but back and forth reverting the page is pointless.—Eloquence 18:57, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

Reversions

Signing other people's comments is entirely reasonable - I do it regularly for Anthere, people have done it for me, and I've done it for 142.177.etc before now, without objection. I don't think it's at all controversial - yours is the very first revertion I've had. So I reinstated.

Ok, no problem. When I first read it, it seemed like what Cyan was saying no longer made sense if the comment had been signed, but on re-reading, I realised he was talking about the use of the word 'someone' rather than the comment itself. Angela

it becomes clear. :)

And to me, as well... <strokes chin looking thoughtful> -- Cyan 01:03, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikipolity

Wikipedia:political dispute outlines some emergent challenges that User:Kat, User:Jtdirl, User:Anthere, myself and others have explicitly commented on, and outlines an approach based on the political virtues article. It seems unlikely that any bureaucracy of accountability can really get all the politics out of disputes. We probably need some explicit means like a duel or election to deal with the truly irreconcilable disputes, at least for a time. This might for instance be how "who leaves the page alone" gets decided.EofT

I tried to apply the political virtues to someone's ongoing dispute with me and my responses, and this was the possibly-amusing result. Not by any means representative, of course, but, others might find better ways and more important issues to apply the concept to. We could do worse than use this list of attributes to assess who needs to work harder to resolve a given dispute. EofT

Hrmm. Sure you want to be linking to anchors within pages? These are subject to disappear without warning, and they'll be the only type of links that look correct but are actually broken... Evercat 01:55, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Talk with Jay (mostly) moved to talk:List of Indians - was I too bold?

Thanks for the tip about the "ceasefire" -- I hadn't heard... --Uncle Ed 17:35, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Subpages

Martin, help! I was trying to help with the Subpages to be moved but now I'm just confused. I think Egypt/Temp, European Union/Temp, Global warming/Temp and Kyrgyzstan/Temp might need fixing. If I move them to the talk space, what happens with their talk pages? I think I've merged in each temp page with what was its original talk page. Is that what was supposed to happen? Please let me know where they should be so I can fix them. Sorry for being a nuisance. Angela 23:34, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to bed! :)

Thanks for the new instructions at how to rename (move) a page. Sorry for fucking it up. :( Angela

Np. My own fault for not making the dangers clear enough! No longterm harm done.
I'm still avoiding those /Temp pages of yours, on account of I'm now very confused...

Refactoring

Martin, I'm glad someone with the wit and gumption to do it, has begun refactoring the talk pages. Please do mine, too! --Uncle Ed 19:38, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

SEPP issues with TAR

SEPP issues with TAR

You removed my comment that SEPP had raised no issues with the TAR. But you failed to replace it with the issues that they had raised. So what are they? I can find none on their web site. Do tell. (William M. Connolley 16:07, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)).

You also removed the para showing that SEPP had used misleading/inappropriate surveys to support their position. Why? (William M. Connolley 16:07, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)).

IPCC

IPCC TAR summary conflict is now undeleted and redirected to IPCC. The history contained only redirects anyway. Angela 22:29, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But an interesting history... at least to me. :) Martin 23:43, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate links to the old discussion about the lag time on VfD.Cyan 00:58, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated. -- Cyan 13:32, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)


Hi there I'm not quite clear on procedures, so I thought I'd ask. I went to 'smokejumper', which was on VfD for being content-free, and added a minimal amount of content, and noted this fact on VfD. I had expected that after this it would stay at least as a stub. Did I need to do something else to suggest this, or was the content I added insufficient? Was there something I missed? DJ Clayworth 19:10, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi. You did great - I delisted it, not deleted it... Sorry if I was unclear Martin 19:22, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
As I would have found if I had followed the link. Thanks for the explanation. DJ Clayworth 10:40, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Thank you. I think things could end up very heated if people start doing things to other people's talk pages that the user in question objects to. If RickK doesn't like what Jiang writes about him on his own talk page then I think he is justified in removing that. If he were removing it from the Problem users page, that would be a different matter. If Jiang has a problem with RickK that he feels needs to read by others then he ought to take that to a more public place than RickK's talk page. Alternatively, if his statements are meant to be read only by Rick then there is no harm in Rick removing them once he has read them. Angela 14:46, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

There is wisdom in your words. Nevertheless, I am saddened by the idea that such pages are "owned" by the users, who have "rights" over their form. Such property is theft.

Relevance

You know Martin...a curious feeling...some people says wikipedia should aim at containing all usefull knowledge in the world. And wikipedia in different languages should not ultimately so much differ one from another, since aim at containing all knowledge...would that mean that each of them should also contain the knowledge it thinks irrelevant, but is actually relevant in another language/culture set ? I mean...ideally, if the en wikipedia decides Boyer is not relevant, why should it be relevant to the french ? But similarly, if the french keep Boyer, why would the en decide it is irrelevant ? It makes me actually thinks of a three star system, *** to indicate major articles, very important, essential notions for any decent person to know, ** to indicate significantly issues and topics, * for common topic or very focused topics (professional stuff for example), no star for unclassified, articles on unknown people, little covered topics.

Hum...ok, beer time :-)

Makes me think of a new idea myself: [[[[vitally important link]]]], [[[useful link]]], [[rarely used link]] - and allow people to configure how many links they want to be shown (and perhaps, important links in bold or otherwise highlighted).
Bed for me :)
very sweet dreams :-))

Hi MRD. I've done a search and there seem to be no further pages in the same scheme as France: Wars of Religion/Bourbon Dynasty. The place to co-ordinate their integration would be Talk:History of France, I've put a note there for when someone has time to deal with it. cheers. -- Tarquin 14:28, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hello. Good evening

I was wrong. It was a redirect. I hate these redirections from one wikipedia to another. This is totally misleading :-(

It happens :)

Hadn't noticed that; thanks for pointing it out! - Hephaestos 19:34, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is really interesting to dig in archives and talk pages. I read the weasel, verifiability and source citing pages today. Recently, I had a rather strong debate on the french wikipedia, on an article dealing with the very high temperatures of this summer, and their impacts in Europe. This article was rather nice, result from a collaboration between several newbies. But an amazing collection of fluttery assertions, free comments, dubious facts, aside with very solid and reliable stuff. I boldly pointed out at the worse points in the talk page, asking for sources. As a result, I was either answered that it was stupid from me to ask this since of course everyone knew it, and second that is was my business, so if I had problems with the article verifiability, it was my problem to correct it and check for sources and that I just had to watch tv as everyone. Mind you, there were some comments such as the US/Canada electricity break out was due to the wide use of air cooler, due to the high temperatures that swept throughtout the world that summer :-)))) or that since it was obvious that climate changes was occuring now, lobbyists were trying to hide their responsabilities. Hum...what is that supposed to mean, I still do not know. Anyway, I barely succeeded to convince the authors that it was not *my* responsability to correct all their laxist work. I looked for a couple of things though, hence removed some of the funniest parts.

We have no guidelines anywhere about how to deal with verification. I think I have a couple of update to do, and then, an example to make :-))). That would perhaps trigger some interesting discussions about verifiability sources :-)

It must be really fascinating, seeing at first hand the differences between the various language projects. It's likewise fascinating reading old archives of discussions on en.wiki - back in the days of Larry Sanger and the Cunctator, when the place was almost without form. Strange how much Wikipedia has changed over time, despite the conservatism that it displays on its face.


yup. I got around feb 2002, when Larry lost the job. On the french slightly later. When I got on the french, we had about 200-300 pages perhaps, user and meta included. Not to say that these were much. Perhaps 20 user pages ? Perhaps 20 meta pages, the basic guidelines, how to edit, why contribute. Just translation of english pages made by the starters. Nothing else. And most contributors not having anything to do with en, or just interested in making pages. No more.
I often wonder what would have happen without me :-) Not to say it would not have been good at all :-) It is just that...I think I wrote more than 50% of the meta pages. Perhaps more. Basically, the ones I did not write are those about naming conventions and such, which are more the realm of Aoineko or Looxix. But most of what I write was with the english model, removing what seemed bad, adding what seemed good. Now, there are a couple of people interested in this too, but usually, most contributors don't care much. They ask for the rules, much more than they tend to make them or participate making them. And complain if the rules do not exist, or if they do exist without having been written. So, I wonder how it would have evolved if I had not make noise on meta, noise on ML and made so many meta pages at all. Would someone else have emerged to do them ? Did I somehow prevent that ? Which would have been the rules then ? Would it have been very much different from what they are now ? I created very little myself, but what would have happened if I had not done anything ? Most of what I "creatively" did was to try to balance things. What would have happened if not ? It is probably harder to say on en, but on the french, we still are not numerous, so just one person can make a huge difference. And we are all precious. Especially the trolls :-) Thank God, the Cunctator was there in front of Larry !!!
shorten in three of your words : it is fascinating. :-))))

I'm not interested in being lectured to. Please keep your unsolicited advice to yourself. There are certainly many other people you can nag. You're very good at it. RickK 01:19, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See http://www.worldviewpub.com/ Thanks. --Jiang
You didn't ask for my opinion, but I gave it anyway, because I'm so fantastically generous :) Martin 02:22, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Robert Taylor Stuff

Sounds like a nasty interaction of edit conflicts, redirects and moved articles. I guess I should try to reproduce it on test.wikipedia and submit something to bug reports - or at least edit the help pages appropriately. Ho hum. Martin 15:23, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it is a bug. From what I can tell, Robert thought it was the software playing up (but it was actually RickK trying to edit the page) and RickK thought it was a vandal (it was actually a newbie who didn't understand and didn't read the warnings on his talk page). I have explained this to him in an e-mail. Angela 18:36, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)
Well, you certainly can get into really weird situations when page moves overlap in time with edits, and the symptoms sounded familiar. But thanks for info. Martin 22:29, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What is interesting with protection war is that is invisible. A perfect example of the total irreality of consensus on wikipedia. Kat was right to leave. Indeed loosing hir time.

I have reverted your redirection of Living space to Lebensraum. The edit summary explains my rationale. Cheers, Cyan 09:16, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Village Pump Deletions

You can't just delete other people's comments from the middle of discussions! CGS 12:45, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC).

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here. ;-)
I thought leaving your comment in might change its meaning too much - but thanks for the feedback.
Yeah, ok. But would you be happy with me mercilessly editing comments that you have signed? Perhaps adding some insults or making you look stupid? You have to be careful editing things that people have said in the meta pages, they're different to the articles. CGS 14:24, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC).
Be bold in editing my comments - they're GFDL'd for a reason.
I don't think I've made anyone look stupid, or added insults to anyone's comments.
I agree with you that when we do any talk-refactoring, we need to be careful.
In this case, I was concerned that leaving your comment, while deleting mine, might misrepresent what you were saying, but I see that I was wrong, and should have left it.

list of hets

Indeed, I was thinking of how to satisfy Jtdirls claim that an "archive" was somehow needed...it did not occur to me to note that a link to a page history was sufficient. LirQ

Hi Martin, I reverted your revert at Wikipedia:Redirect. It seems all such pages are now moving to Meta. Having the text here as well will mean the two don't match, so there should be only one version. I think the link is there to avoid the problems that some people have with inter-wiki redirects. See mav's message at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Plan to move most of this page to meta soon. Angela 15:55, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I thought it was meant to be impossible for inlined images to appear anywhere. Angela 21:05, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So did I. I've raised a bug report.
Keep it under your hat... :) Martin 21:27, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

RE: What do other wikipedians think of me

Boy with blanks? Isn't that for folks who are impotent?

^_^ Has any one ever told you how much we appreciate your sense of humor? If it wasn't for handful of great people like you here, I think I would have probably give up on this whole place as a colossal waste of time. So...thank you for that. (I think you probably don't hear that enough around here, which is a shame.) </sappy-touchy-feely-ness> Paige 00:46, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC) (When you summarize this, please just tell everyone that I told you "That's a very silly hat you have on.") &#167:o)

Aww, sweetness!
Love yous, hun, keep up the good work. :)

I moved this off talk:Main Page, because I'm not sure it was relevant there, but I didn't want to just delete it. k? Not a problem, I just didn't know where else to put it. RickK 06:26, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MartinHarper&oldid=1489992"