Misplaced Pages

User talk:Martin Hogbin: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:32, 7 January 2016 editMartin Hogbin (talk | contribs)20,189 edits Final warning← Previous edit Revision as of 20:27, 7 January 2016 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits + commentNext edit →
Line 99: Line 99:
:::::::So you are also alleging bias, just to be clear. --] (]) 17:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC) :::::::So you are also alleging bias, just to be clear. --] (]) 17:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::I am saying that the article uses vegan language, which is wrong. There are vegan sources that say 'animals have commodity status'. Most people would do not use this language to describe the way that humans treat animals. We should use terminology used by the majority of people not the terminology of the subjects of the article. ] (]) 18:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC) ::::::::I am saying that the article uses vegan language, which is wrong. There are vegan sources that say 'animals have commodity status'. Most people would do not use this language to describe the way that humans treat animals. We should use terminology used by the majority of people not the terminology of the subjects of the article. ] (]) 18:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

{{od}} Martin, this isn't just about veganism; there have been similar issues at other articles. It is our responsibility to educate ourselves about issues if we want to write about them on Misplaced Pages. Please see ]. To be active at an article where one has strong views but no knowledge, then to park oneself there for months or even years, isn't respectful of other people's time. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:27, 7 January 2016

Earliest discussions are found at /Archive0. For later discussions see /Archive 1 and following archives.

Monty Hall problem mediation

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Monty Hall problem has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Misplaced Pages's policy on resolving disagreements is at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Rick Block (talk)


Request for Amendment to Arbitration

Hello, Martin Hogbin. This is to inform you that there is a request for amendement regarding an arbitration case that you have commented on.Likebox (talk) 05:03, 8

?oygul's contributions

These diffs represent the sum total of ?oygul's contributions to WP apart from subjects directly related to the arguments concerning Tree shaping.

Martin Hogbin (talk)

Superluminal Aether

Your hrash words indicate that you need to acquire more intellect. Read the peer-reviewed publication. Sir-Restriction (talk)

BoB sig

Hi Martin, your signatures on this series of comments seem to have gone astray. In my view a significance section is a good idea, but I think we can go into much more detail than the paragraph you proposed, and can show sources which contest the significance. As in the Luftwaffe view that it was all part of the air war against England, which included the Blitz. . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the sigs. I am happy to include all views on the significance based on relaible sources. Which sources do you think contest the significance? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Seeking WP:Environment members

Hi Martin, I'm looking for editors to collaborate on making some improvements to Efficient energy use, and I noticed you were a member of WP:CCTF. I have a paid COI regarding the article, which has been declared. Would you be interested in helping me out?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

When consensus is very obvious, anyone can close a RfC

See: WP:ANRFC. Nonetheless, I'm going to request a closure there. Banedon (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus according to WP policy is not so obvious but I support your suggestion so long as the request is completely neutral. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
My proposed wording, 'Requested, uninvolved, disinterested admin to close this RfC' was entirely neutral; yours was not, as it asked for consensus to be assessed and made no mention of WP policy. I have asked for a uninvolved, disinterested admin. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Martin, are you absolutely sure you need an admin to close this? I am a NAC that has closed over 200 RFC's. AlbinoFerret 20:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer. I am not sure that I need an admin but I do need someone who understands the core principles of WP:RS and WP:V. After a discussion with one editor I am beginning to wonder if people are misunderstanding what I want to say, because to me it should not be particularly controversial. It might therefore be better to leave the discussion open for a while longer in the hopes that we can reach an (unexpected) agreement.
Would you be willing to help ensure that we are, in fact, all arguing about the same thing and not talking to cross purposes? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi, in your post to the "billion vs million" debate, you selected "option 1", but your comments indicate that you actually appear to support "option 2". In case there is a typo there, would you mind reviewing your post and confirming/clarifying your choice? Thanks. - WOLFchild 02:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Final warning

If you deliberately disrupt Misplaced Pages as you did here, I will request your topic ban from the subject. You know perfectly well that your edit was unacceptable. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not make ridiculous threats to me. The change to the article that was originally made by another user was made in good faith and seemed perfectly reasonable to me yet it was immediately reverted with a rather threatening edit comment. I reverted the revert because to use the definition of veganism used by the The Vegan Society would seem logical and neutral. I cannot see that using their definition represents undue weight any more than using a definition synthesised from a number of sources selected by editors here. I edited once and have not since edit warred. The basic principle of Misplaced Pages is that of cooperative editing, which can be done by any editor acting in good faith. My edit was a good faith attempt to support an improvement to the article. No article is ever finally settled and improvements must always be considered posible.
Now, perhaps you could tell us why you think your version of the article is better so that we can discuss improvement in a civil manner. I have copied this discussion to the article talk page wher discussion of improvements should take place. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
In all honesty, I have rarely seen you improve an article. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
That does not sound much like civil discussion of why you regard the wording used in the GA version of this article as giving undue weight to one view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Please start a new discussion on the article talk page about your viewpoint. You know this, yet over and over again you refuse to do the right thing. Do not copy over my user talk warning again. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I have to second this. I can provide numerous examples of your disruptive, tendentious behavior on vegetarian, environmental, and "green" topics generally. AGF is not a suicide pact. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Martin: I'm sorry to agree that, while we were all working on Carnism, I usually shared your position about what changes were needed—but thought your comments often impeded constructive collaboration. It's crucial not to give the impression of having a WP:Battleground mindset. FourViolas (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

None of you has to agree with me but I would appreciate it if you would make your points by discussion of the article content on the article talk pages rather than by atacking me personally or making absurd and offensive threats here. I started by supporting a change made in good faith by another editor to one article and by suggesting some changes to another on its talk page. If you think I am wrong tell me why on the article talk pages. I look forward to discusing article content with you all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You say you showed up out of the blue to revert to a version edited by a sleeper account which spent the last three years silent and unused, only to show up out of the blue and edit the article on Veganism. I wouldn't think this is such a big deal except that being unusually prone to pattern recognition, I seem to recall several sleeper or new accounts showing up out of the blue on many other articles and topics only to be followed by you reverting to their version. I hope I'm misremembering the past and this is not true. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
That sounds like a thinly veiled accusation of some form of misconduct by me. If you think I have done something wrong then take it to the proper forum. I do not really care what you do or do not remember but I would like you to stick to discussion of content rather than atacking editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@Viriditas: I think you should not indulge Martin and Zippy268's efforts at provocation for the time being. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Once again, please talk about content, not editors.
You may find it hard to believe but there are people who have different opinions from you. It seems that there are now several editors who disagree with the synthesis that we currently have in the lead of veganism. Discussing possible change is not provocation but how WP works. Please remember, nobody owns the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Gaslighting. Discussion of the putative issues appears at Talk:Veganism and is hardly relevant to the present subject. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Yet another attack. I am not twisting anything I just do not see the world from a vegan perspective. Neither do most other people. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
So you are also alleging bias, just to be clear. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I am saying that the article uses vegan language, which is wrong. There are vegan sources that say 'animals have commodity status'. Most people would do not use this language to describe the way that humans treat animals. We should use terminology used by the majority of people not the terminology of the subjects of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, this isn't just about veganism; there have been similar issues at other articles. It is our responsibility to educate ourselves about issues if we want to write about them on Misplaced Pages. Please see WP:COMPETENCE. To be active at an article where one has strong views but no knowledge, then to park oneself there for months or even years, isn't respectful of other people's time. SarahSV 20:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)