User talk:Marteau: Difference between revisions

I will continue to occasionally review articles about people I know or have known personally with an eye towards fixing vandalism and incorrect information. And in my day-to-day life, should I stumble upon an obvious error, I'll probably not be able to resist correcting it. But involving myself in topics which tend to attract people who feel the ends justify the means, people who treat this as a game and use the tactics of gamesmanship and who are not here to actually build an encyclopedia but to push an agenda, is toxic for me and I am not paid enough to deal with such things. As my dad once put it, "There is nothing worse than an intelligent asshole" and brother, this place is Exhibit "A".

"Marteau" means "hammer" in French. It was a name I went by when I was into competitive computer gaming, and a name which (I thought) described my merciless, unrelenting, cold-hearted playstyle.

... but this is a barn star-free zone.

Oh, and food too.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 21 years, 6 months and 5 days.

Oh no: this user has way too many userboxes.

Bill Vidal ... a former mayor of Denver
Enso ... the subject of Japanese calligraphy and the former logo of Lucent (aka "the coffee cup ring")
Muckraker ... the list of modern muckrakers someone started there is horrible, with no cites. Someone needs to take a mop to it.
Matt Drudge ... Before he Matts YOU!
Chogyam Trungpa ... aka "Chogyam Drunkpa", a drunkard and a guru who hilariously crashed his car into a joke shop
Yumi ... the Japanese longbow
Kanjuro Shibata XX ... a Japanese Kyudo sensei and yumi-maker

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Helenkeller.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 07:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Calliopejen1 07:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tagremover disputes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Tagremover (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment at Beyonce Knowles. Beyond Beyonce, I see the late Whitney Houston's entry comprises more than 12,000 words. Sigh....

Sca (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that an arbitration case request, named Tagremover disputes, in which you were named as a party has been withdrawn by the filing party. The commenting arbitrators felt that the community was able to handle this issue at the current time and it was withdrawn by the filing party.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tagremover (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Little Feat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pantheon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reference for Panda Express didn't mention them using sriracha sauce at all. - Takeaway (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marteau,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Pablo.paz for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Blackguard 20:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Was intending to create a user talk page and not an article. Marteau (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the chunk you just removed from [Blackjack] was too much detail, but to answer your question in the checkin comment ("what is the Kelly condition?"), the person who wrote that text was presumably referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion . Application of the Kelly {rule/criterion/principle} to blackjack betting strategy is described a bit more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting#Ranging_bet_sizes_and_the_Kelly_criterion --Blogjack (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Veggies (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(copy-pasted from my reply on the talk page in question) As per WP:TALK "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page(accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." I deleted everything from Objective3000 saying, "It's been an entire day since you apologized for claiming that I willfully misrepresented something on a completely different subject.:)" on. Another editor restored it, saying "Deleting comments on an article talk page is a NO-NO!" That is not always the case. I delete this as per WP:TALKO which says under the "Off-Topic posts subsection" which says. "It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above." and "Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion." So deletion and sometimes moving material which does not contribute to the improvement of the article can in fact be deleted. That said, I will not delete it again and leave it to other non-involved editors to decide if they want this to remain. Marteau (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Marteau (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response to my vote. Wikipedia is a great resource, but a few articles do reflect the biases of the majority of its editors. As a heavy user of Wikipedia, I would also like to thank you for your contributions.

JS (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marteau, you claim that the word "redneck" is offensive and bigoted in the context that I used it. However, I dispute your claim. "According to Reed (1986) and Hartigan (2003), a redneck is often thought to be a person who is ignorant, uneducated, or intellectually limited; who is from a lower social class; and who is prejudiced or racist..." That is exactly the type of person who reads and believes the kind of crap spewed by the right wing noise machine. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster, for when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss gazes also into you.” - Some German dude Marteau (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just happened upon this talk segment, but as a point of fact, "redneck" is indeed classified as a pejorative word, regardless of the context in which it's used. Hence if one agrees with the contention that as sapient, reasoning beings we act immorally when we purposefully trigger an irrational, emotional response in others by using such emotive terms, then such terms should be substituted with reasoning arguments. My 2 cents, as a plurationalist. Fhburton (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marteau, I won't press for reversal of your decision to revert/remove the old external link from Stoicism to www.circleofreason.org's plurationalist society; but limiting the article's links only to those modern practices named "stoic" or with ">x" number of uses of the word "stoic" may prove insufficient to highlight all real-world stoic practices in the public sphere, or even the most noteworthy ones. Plurationalists don't call themselves a branch of stoicism because the popularly-known stoic practice of moderationism is only one of the three behavioral practices of pluralistic rationalism (its others being factualism and skepticism -- both also lesser-recognized stoic practices); and because plurationalists believe that all stoic practices are reducible to a more fundamental axiomatic moral principle it seeks to emphasize, that Reason is the only moral source, test and conduit of knowledge. Nonetheless, aspects of stoicism are important elements of plurationalism. As one illustration, Zeno and Epictetus would probably have been intrigued by the Star Trek characters Surak and Spock; and were these Vulcan practitioners of "IDIC + Logic" not fictive, their practice's similarities with stoicism would be worth an external link. Pluralistic rationalists, however, aren't fictive. Best regards, Fhburton (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Neil deGrasse Tyson. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by every word. The bullshit surrounding this issue has got to be called out when it occurs. Marteau (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your striking on WP:ANI. While I personally did not find the characterization to be remarkable in any way, your willingness to strike based on community feedback is certainly worth remark. Thanks. aprock (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marteau. I am sorry if I've upset you. I am new to Wikipedia and am attending an American Literature course at Brigham Young University. One of our requirements is to add to or create a new wikipedia post covering some important information that is pertinent to our course. I have had a hard time figuring out how to cite things and am slowly working on this. I would love to add page numbers and will do so tonight once I figure out how to. Like I said, I am new to Wikipedia and honestly have never done any of this before. I need to publish this information so that I can receive credit for the information I have added in my American Literature course. Also, I think it provides a healthy addition to the scanty information provided about the Quaker colonial experience.

If I add the page numbers and then try to revert it tonight what will happen? I would love to add the page numbers tonight so I can have it published. Thanks for your help and thanks for watchin for this un-cited information on the internet. There is way too much of it and it makes doing research difficult when nothing is verifiable. Sorry again about being so slow and new to Wikipedia. Kyzun (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you completely misunderstood my reference to Drudge, but I can see how it was ambiguous, so I take responsibility for it. I'm actually interested in seeing you improve his biography. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read there was a rule about "References". Actually, that's all over the internet, that you need to use reference.

Perhaps you should be warning the other guy about that?

There's no heat on my side, there just no references, and the guy fed a bullshit line about the original Variety review from the 1950s because it was already being used in the article.

Why didn't you pull him up for those? --Salty Batter (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salty Batter: The other guy does not need assistance with Wikipedia rules... you obviously do. References are not required for plot, see WP:FILMPLOT where it says "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." Marteau (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, there is no other reference.

I'm perfectly capable of discussing my rationale reasonably, if he starts a discussion and puts forward his. Even better, if he just adds some references. But that's not what he is doing.

He removed other edits. He used a false summary to make it look like he was changing it to someone else's when in fact he was just changing it back to his own version. I think the excuse he used about Variety was false. Now he's running off like a sneak to report it. WTF?

Who is this guy and why is no one pulling him up? Is this normal?

--Salty Batter (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salty Batter: It is normal. You will often run into people you don't get along with, and people who will try to push your buttons. I'm not saying Dennis is doing so, I'm just saying that becoming aggrivated with people and questioning their motives is common here and happens to everyone. In the case of a dispute, there is a path we follow to resolve the dispute, it's documented at WP:DISPUTE. It begins with seeking "consensus" on the talk page, and involved discussing your reasoning. Edit summaries are not really the way to discuss it, and I'm not into looking at what Dennis has summarized or whether it is correct or not... where it matters now is on the talk page. Marteau (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there are dicks all walks of life, and we all get to be one now and again, but please allow me to underline that I am not aggravated one bit. People tend to show their true colors in life fairly quickly and this guy surely has. For me, it looks like he think he owns the page and wants to provoke some kind of conflict. Unfortunately using a dishonest summary and running off to report it and attempt to engage others on his side, rather than just start a discussion, raises questions about his motivation and challenges my respect for him.

I'm just a little concerned about fairness and onesidedness. I don't mind being pulled up if I am wrong, but where two people are involved, and there are reasonable questions about the accuser or provoker actions too, then it should go both ways.

Is the 1950s Variety review acceptable or not? I would have thought it highly value record of the response to the movie at that time which is important. If the the Variety review is acceptable, then he was clearly in wrong. --Salty Batter (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salty Batter: In this world, I pick my fights as any sane man should do. And I'm choosing not to get involved in this one any more than I already am. I'm not going to look at Dennis's edit summaries and see if they match up with his edits, for example. But I will say this much... the place where issues about the article are dealt with begins on the article talk page, or the other editor's talk page. If you cannot agree with the other guy, and you don't want to give it up, there are ways to deal with that and those are talked about in WP:DISPUTE. What you can do is ask other editors who are willing to deal with it, to comment on the issue by going to the "Requests For Comment" board at WP:RFC. Or, if you think things are really bad and need an administrator to deal with things, you go to the administrator notice board at WP:ANI. But personally, regarding the Variety quote issue, as I said on the talk page, I don't think it belongs in the article. Just because something is cited and has a reference does not mean it automatically gets into the article... there are many reasons it can be excluded, and I said on The Wild One talk page why, in my opinion, the Variety quote should not be in the article. Reasonable people can disagree, but in the end, what matters is "concensus" WP:CONCENSUS which is done by talking about it, and what gets "Concensus" stays in the article. If you think there are problems beyond that, or if you think something without "Concensus" is in the article and should not, you can handle it as a dispute as I said above. Marteau (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm not the kind of guy to run off to momma, or snitch on others. Consensus among a small group of individuals can just as often be wrong as right.

What happens on the Wikipedia if you get two or three deluded individuals acting as a gang dominating one individual trying to keep things neutral and objective? Do the three just say, "we have a consensus" and win even if they are wrong or attempting to prejudice some article?

That's an honest question and I am not including you among the deluded or erroneous. However, I would like you to show me how I was using Varietyspeak, otherwise I have to consider that your argument is misleading.

If I was not using Varietyspeak, then why bring it up? Thank you. --Salty Batter (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]