| Revision as of 13:51, 28 August 2010 editDoRD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers22,865 edits →Perplexed: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:56, 28 August 2010 edit undo129.123.40.50 (talk) →Perplexed: Why is WMF allowed to teach their admins to employ such curious practices as Bill of Attainder in this day and age? Isn't that inconsistent with the Mission of WMF?Next edit → | ||
| Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
| == Perplexed == | == Perplexed == | ||
| Martin, why are you reverting the constructive contributions of ]? Do you have a good reason for doing that? —] 09:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC) |
Martin, why are you reverting the constructive contributions of ]? Do you have a good reason for doing that? —] 09:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :I think you know the answer to that question. As a blocked user, whether logged-in or as an IP, you are not allowed to edit enwiki. Period. —] (]) 13:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC) | :I think you know the answer to that question. As a blocked user, whether logged-in or as an IP, you are not allowed to edit enwiki. Period. —] (]) 13:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :*Why is WMF allowed to teach their admins to employ such curious practices as ] in this day and age? Isn't that inconsistent with the ]? —] 14:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:56, 28 August 2010
| This is MartinPoulter's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 4 months  |
|
|
Citation tool for Google Books | Citation tool for DOIs | Cleanup template messages
Centralized discussion
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.FYI
Please see Misplaced Pages: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)
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)
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
| For your help in copyediting the Nobel Prize Esuzu (talk • contribs) 20:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
- Hello, if possible please take a look at Misplaced Pages: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#Conductive polymers controversy (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)
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.—RJH (talk) 15:01, 11 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 Misplaced Pages: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).
Confirmation Bias
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| Well done with your successful work on confirmation bias. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC) |
- Congrats MP. Fainites scribs 22:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Congratulations, excellent work. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 8 July 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 scribs 15:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Psychology Barnstar
|
The Psychology Barnstar | |
| I, Smallman12q, hereby award MartinPoulter the Psychology Barnstar for his excellent article on confirmation bias. Thank you!Smallman12q (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
- 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)
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 Misplaced Pages (most entries have 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 Misplaced Pages articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Misplaced Pages about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Perplexed
Martin, why are you reverting the constructive contributions of User:Moulton? Do you have a good reason for doing that? —Gastrin Bombesin 09:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think you know the answer to that question. As a blocked user, whether logged-in or as an IP, you are not allowed to edit enwiki. Period. —DoRD (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why is WMF allowed to teach their admins to employ such curious practices as Bill of Attainder in this day and age? Isn't that inconsistent with the Mission of WMF? —Moulton 14:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)