User talk:MartinDK/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Hello MartinDK, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Gogo Dodo 07:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

[edit] Axis Powers

[edit] Axis Powers

Hi, I have, within a very short space of time, reverted two perverse edits on Denmark by a user who goes by the name of Garamundi. I think you are probably familiar with this character, who has some highly eccentric views on the subject, and a lot of residual prejudice. I am reaching my 24 hour edit limiit; so I would ask you to keep a watch. White Guard 01:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed Garamundi, in both the signed and unsigned versions. I had in fact reported the matter when I reached my reversion limit, and I see that action has now been taken by two separate administrators. To be honest, I am not quite sure what is going on, though I have a hunch-from other comments on the Axis Powers talk page-that the user may be Croatian. If this is correct, his agenda may be to pull wartime Croatia up ( a very difficult task) by pulling Denmark down. Anyway, thanks for your own counter-edits. Best wishes. White Guard 23:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denmark during World War II

Thanks for your post Martin. Unfortunately I don't have enough time to properly deal with either Axis Powers or Occupation of Denmark - although it would be tempting to do so -but the five questions offended me pretty much. If it isn't obvious already, you can no doubt guess why. During the last days I worked on two threads you might find interesting. The first started on Talk:Allies of World War II but ended on Occupation of Denmark; the last is on the bottom of Talk:Allies of World War II. As you can see, this is not my normal area of expertise and my information was somewhat sketchy at first. However, I dug a little deeper, so the post you saw does change one of my earlier conclusions about Frikorps Danmark. I disagree with the notion that Denmark was a German ally but - although it pains me to say it - I have to admit that Denmark never formally declared war on Germany, so it is probably also unfair to group Denmark with the Allies - despite of the efforts of the Resistance and those that fell in British service - but this conclusion does in no way change my respect for both the Danish Resistance and the Danish sailors. Both groups hold my highest possible respect. Good luck with the article and happy editing. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidate review: Buffy article

Hi

Just letting WikiProject Buffyverse members know that the article 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' has recently been nominated as a candidate to become a featured article. Should it become a featured article, it will be possible for the article to appear on the Wikipedia main page on March 10th 2007, the 10th anniversary of Buffy (the premiere, "Welcome to the Hellmouth" aired March 10th 1997).

Any feedback you can offer to improve the article and/or to either object or support the nomination would be wonderful:

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer

-- Paxomen 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin-my friend.

Martin, what can I say? Thank you does not really seem to be enough. Both you and Haber have shown yourselves to be the best thing any person can hope for-friendship and encouragement in time of need (I hope this doesn't sound too gushing!). The whole thing was so completely arbitrary and unexpected that it took me a while to work out what was going on. There was no discussion, no explanation, no hint of any kind. The 'elephant was dropped', and that was all. I'm looking to register a formal complaint; but quite frankly this is no easy matter, as there seem to be so many dead ends and bureaucratic obstacles. Anyway, I value your Wiki friendship, so please be assured that I will support and assist you in any way I can in times to come. Oh yes, 'Long Live Denmark'! White Guard 00:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If you ever read this, Martin, I have supplied, at your suggestion, a little information on my background on my user page-red has at the last turned to blue. I still wish to remain anonymous, but I have given some details of my academic life, more, perhaps, than I really should!. I have to say that I would not have done this for anyone else. The very best of luck. White Guard 23:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LTV

Just wanted to say thanks for your constructive attempts to help out at Labour Theory of Value...--Red Deathy 10:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I just read the LTV article and it's discussion. As a (non-practicing) undergrad economist, I would just like to say I appreciate what you've done. Especially for your patience and good faith in dealing with sometimes foolish or hostile replies. Responsiblebum 07:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would like your opinion

Good day,

I recently gave an answer to someone about raising minimum wages. I think he's got a socialist bent in him. May I ask you opinion on what I wrote? Sorry it's long. I'm afraid it is too simplistic, even wrong. I'm a little rusty.

It is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gloria_Macapagal-Arroyo#RXN_to_peoplestruth.2C_though_this_is_not_the_right_place

I really want other people to know why just raising minimum wages without raising productivity can't lead to further economic progress and may hinder it.

Thanks in advance if you decide to leave comments or even read it. Responsiblebum 07:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your inputs sir. It was a lot more than what I expected; thanks for mentioning wage efficiency and answering the IMF/WB charges for me. I was about to review my textbooks for that one.

FYI though, the Philippines is geographically defined to be in the South East Asian region. East Asiaː China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. All except China have successfully moved up the value chain I think. Responsiblebum 16:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Typos be damned. Naw, it's ok. You were quite clear. I'm just thankful I could get inputs from a professional economist.

On the Philippinesː We're not attracting a lot of foreign investors for our labor compared to our counterparts though. It's quite expensive due to an inflexible labor market (some disputes can last 10 years), inefficient agricultural sector and infrastructure. And our power rates are the 2nd highest in Asia (long story [1]). Our situation is quite maddening. Agriculture still takes up 20-25% of GDP. I agree peace and stability is necessary and it is best sustained by efficient and honest government but getting there might need “getting your hands dirty”. Just my opinion.

On politics and economicsː I agree that political debate should be avoided in the talkpages but I tried to avoid it by not saying whether we should or should not raise the minimum wage. I focused on just explaining what would happen. I hoped this would lead to a civilized discourse, maybe I'm just naive.

Thank you again for your time and effort. Best regards Responsiblebum 08:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to see you go

Come on man. I don't know you too well, but wouldn't a short vacation suit your purposes better? You can still make a big impact with only a few minutes now and then, and the project doesn't have to be left to people chained all day to their computers (i.e. most of the admins and heavy contributors), wikilawyers, and teenagers with bizarre agendas. Without casual contributors like ourselves, the project would quickly sink to irrelevance. I agree that we should be treated better, but it's no reason to leave. Like it or not this is the most popular online reference for many subjects. Haber 15:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back. I have replied on my talk page. Haber 04:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you back. The Wiki can be a very frustrating place, but I still believe it is built on more good will than bad. That's my two cents anyway. Btw, it is not only the historical material that creates controversy. Have you seen the debate about cold fusion? :) See you around. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. Best of luck. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of Java and C++

I was responding to your post already when you left the comment on my talk page. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were editing at the same time. MartinDK 11:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to give a proper response to your reply now, and I'll be out most of the weekend, but I will respond in a couple days. Basically, I agree that there probably is a lot of wording and other stuff to clean up, but I guess I was looking for the things beyond wording where there is a POV issue. Not having really even looked at this article since I last touched it some 6 months ago, I'm sure that many weasel wording and inaccuracies have been introduced. But I'll take a closer look next week. (And while some of your points are correct, I think some maybe have a C++ POV. ) —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That's OK I am sure they do. But we will work that out. The main thing is that we work towards removing the last two tags. Also, I was looking through it once more and I am going to remove the original research tag and replace it with weasel. It seems to have been wrongly tagged perhaps because the person tagging it didn't know the difference. Thanks for your time and effort, I really appreciate the help with getting these tags removed. The backlog of articles tagged as original research is over 1200 articles long and no one seems to be looking at them so I am trying to work my way through them but it is not always easy. Some of the tags have been there for months. In this case I was lucky you responded so quickly, in most cases there is hardly any mention of why the article was tagged. Apparently people think it is self evident for some reason. MartinDK 12:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skagerrak and Kattegat

Hi Martin

I just noticed you'd tagged the page on Skagerrak as original research. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! I've updated both this page and the one on Kattegat with something more serious. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That looks a lot better now. Thank you for looking that up. Happy editing, MartinDK 10:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad faith and harsh unfounded assumptions

You have assumed bad faith at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken and Rice

Comment AfD is a voting process. You cannot "Restate" your keep and tell everyone else they cannot vote because of it. Doesn't matter if you are in school. If you continue this way you are disrupting the voting process/AfD. People do not make reliable sources. Stop making up your own policies, they are bogus. MartinDK 08:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from insulting fellow members of WP. AfD is a discussion not a flame war.

It is insulting to accuse someone of "bogus" simply becuase you disagree with them. Primary sources can be used as long as they are not bias and I am not disrupting WP Policy. Many of the statement on that page can be proved by simply going to the Chicken and Rice. Also chicken and rice as been cited by multiple independent sources which establishs notability.

Secondly, my statement meant to please read my argument before making a statement. It is merely a suggestion so that people can approach both sides without bias. Please to do say that my statements are "bogus". It is pretty clear given my edit history that I am here to help Wikipedia expand and grow. For future references AfD is not a vote and do not assume bad faith. Valoem ^talk 08:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Bishop Berkeley, welcome! What's to mind? Never matter. What's the matter? Never mind. Please provide arguments based on direct references to Wikipedia policies and/or criterias when discussing the AfD. That is what everyone else have done. You decided to tell people they couldn't counter your arguments and vote or whatever you want to call it until you had finished making yours which is a bogus intepretation of WP:AGF and WP:AFD. WP:AFD clearly says that arguments should be based on official policies. Not once have you been able to refer to any official policy to support your arguments. Doesn't matter if you call it a vote, in reality it works very much the same way during the debate phase. Now go away silly person. MartinDK 10:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to inform those reading this Valoem changed the offending edit after my reply. Here is a link to the version I objected to [2]. Also, I apologize for not staying cool. That was unworthy of my own AfD. I'm leaving it in the hands of my fellow editors to decide if the changes made by him are sufficient to salvage the article. MartinDK 13:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have put back the so called "offending edit" per your request. The reasons I removed the edit was because it was irrelevant to the discussion. People are going to read my edit anyways, there was no need for me to say "Before anyone votes please read through this response". My statement about being busy with school was said because I did not have time to edit the Chicken and Rice page, I was hoping someone else could. However I went ahead and did it anyways, hence why I removed that statement as well. It was not because I was trying to hide anything. Also your statement about "Since I am now being threatened on my talk page by the above editor to shut up I will leave this to others" is both false and irrelevant to the AfD discussion. I sent you a friendly warning not a threat. It can also be seen as an act of bad faith since you are using a personal argument to win sides in an AfD. I have contacted an administrator about this and he agrees with me that you have personally attacked me. Neither of us intend to do anything about it as long as you drop the argument. Valoem ^talk 18:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied above and on the AfD. It's all yours, it's just an article about a food cart on a website. No one is going to care if it is there or not. If you doubt me check the website of the cart on Alexa. Nor is it going to matter if I work on the backlog of pages tagged as original research which is how I stumbled across Chicken and Rice in the first place. I am not going to spend any more energy on the subject. Happy editing and the very best of luck with your food cart articles and whatever other articles you should choose to work on. This account is dead now, no point in replying except if others drop by but I presume the interest in this talk page will fade pretty fast like my interest in Wikipedia. MartinDK 19:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I've been following the discussion since Valoem first notified me of it. I know as well as you and Valoem do that none of us are saints in this matter. There seem to be personal attacks coming from all sides. Valoem came to me pretty politely, and I wanted to show him some diplomacy at first. It seems, however, that he is trying to exert some influence over the opinions on the Chicken and Rice and related AfDs; while there's nothing that says he can't do this in theory, that doesn't make it any better an idea.
Now that that's on the table, I'll go on to the points you brought up. It's good of him to want to improve the article even though it is up for deletion. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but trying to sway people into not voting or voting contrary to what they otherwise might is not a good idea. You mention that he seems to be acting as a primary source for the article in question; this is a lot closer to being against guidelines, as it's basically original research. Otherwise, there seem to be some references in the Chicken and Rice article from outside sources, but I haven't checked them out yet.
Also, you seem to be right that Valoem suggests I agree in condemning you, but as you have duly noted, you have apologized, which is a completely appropriate and commendable action. You don't seem to be as new as Valoem is implying, either, as you have a decent grasp on policy. --Merovingian ※ Talk 12:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Very nice to get things sorted out. Besides that I think his below comments speak for themselves. Apparently he also controls if I am allowed to contact administrators without asking his permission. Good luck on your nomination, you will make an excellent member, I am sure of that. MartinDK 21:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Response When I made the post to Merovingian it was before you apologize in fact it was a response to you saying "go away silly person". It was because you refused to reason with me. I made the post on Merovingian's talk page on 12:06, 14 November 2006, before you apologize. You first apologized on your talk page at 13:51, 14 November 2006 then on the discussion at 17:55, 14 November 2006. Secondly you have brought an unrelated issue to Merovingian claiming that was slandering you. The person who apperently said "you" (I dont even know if that was directed at you) were "power tripping" has nothing to do with anything I said. Other thing, I also remarked why I removed the comment which was because "it was irrelevent to the discussion" not because it was "offending" or that I was hiding something I did (when you suggested that I immediately put back the comment). Of course all this is repetition, were have already discussed this, but yet you decide not to tell the admin the reasons, just that I "changed" the comment. Finally after I have enlightened you of the matter and CLEARLY told you that have asked an admin's view on the issue you, you responded saying that you are going to drop it and lost interest in WP, however the next day you wrote back to that admin (i dont know why you would do this maybe hoping I wouldn't see? you even said "respond on my talk page") stated many things that were bias and distorted the truth. Valoem ^talk 18:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to get the admin's view on the whole situation and not just up to the point when my response here offended you. The case is closed now, I am not providing any more counter arguments. I got the response I was looking for and no, I did not think you wouldn't notice. I just didn't care if you did. I made one observation about you asking for inclusionist opinions. That I can prove and has the right to observe. Now let's just pretend we never met and this never happened. Obviously you feel stronger about the AfD than I really do. Happy editing, I have more articles to nuke MartinDK 19:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I can understand how you might want your talk page, but it's rather contrary to the convention of having public talk pages. Generally the only time user talk pages should be protected is when the user has been blocked as is abusing their ability to post on their talk page. Regards. --Merovingian ※ Talk 01:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You are continuing to fuel the fire. You are not dropping the issue if you continue to leave nasty comments.

• This is going to be my last response to you. I have been nothing but professional to all your statements including the false and bias statements you made on Merovingian's talk page and frankly, I have reached the limit. First and foremost your recent comment, "Besides that I think his below comments speak for themselves. Apparently he also controls if I am allowed to contact administrators without asking his permission" is either a massive misinterpretation of what I said, or just a plain lie. It is clearly intended to incriminate me and my actions when I have done nothing wrong but warn you of possible infractions you might have committed (in a professional manner too). Is this a reponse to my statement "i dont know why you would do this maybe hoping I wouldn't see?"? If it is, I stated reason for saying that.

First, you tell me that you are going to drop this issue and have no interest in WP anymore. Then the next day you surreptitiously reply back to that admin and slander me without giving me a chance to reply. You most certain don't have to tell me you contacted an admin, but don't pretend you dropped the issue when you really haven't AND then bad mouth me, is just dirty. I clearly gave you a chance when I told you I contacted an admin. Not by chance, you also seemed to have left a great deal of not just bias, but false information. For example you told him that I was not allowing people to vote against me? What?!?! I never said anything like that, just to "please read my comments before posting" because I have cited a lot of new sources and disproved several of your initial reasons for deletion. Some of them were primary, but I added at least 7 new secondary citations in.

Then you try to tell him and blame me for someone else's comments "One of the people he convinced to leave a "keep" suggestion on the AfD even blatantly refers to me as being on a "Power trip" on his talk page. How is that not a personal attack?". That comment didnt even have anything to do with you. If you consider it a personal attack it most certainly was not one committed by me.

If you are going to drop this issue don't leave nasty comments. Also it is strange that you wanted you page protect when no one is vandalizing it, I wonder why that is :/. Happy editing! Valoem ^talk 09:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible candidates for deletion

I myself am not very adept at the deletion process. You may want to take a look at the following articles: Beate Wulff, Johan Wulff, Count Philip of Rosenborg, Countess Katharina of Rosenborg, Countess Charlotte of Rosenborg, Count Ulrick of Rosenborg. They are all descendants of royalty, but I'm not sure that counts as notable. They're all created by the same editor. Noel S McFerran 12:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Noel!

I would be very reluctant about nominating those for deletion. Not only are they notable in Denmark (may or may not qualify) but they are all in the line of succession to the British Throne and all the information is easily verified using Google. Maybe a merge since most of them are in the same family would be a good idea and since they are stubs. That would leave one article on the Rosenborg family and two remaining stubs. Also, deleting them would break the template for people in line to the British Throne.

Also, Wikipedia does include articles about much less notable royalties in countries like Germany where the monarchy was abandonded many many years ago.

I can understand why you ask though but being a stub does not automatically qualify them as candidates for deletion. I suggest proposing a merge. Happy editing, MartinDK 13:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hope you're not leaving for good

hi there, just saw your user page. I hope afd over chicken and rice hasn't put you off editing wikipedia for good. I know it can get frustrating at times, but I see it as part of the frontline in the effort to define wikipedia better. When I get wiki-flustered, I find it helpful to go off and create a little article or two, according to my standards. Hope you'll be back, we need discerning editors suchs as yourself. all the best Bwithh 17:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

No I am not leaving. I did become discouraged though. You are right that it is part of Wikipedia being cleaned of non-notable "anything-goes" nonsense. But given that the AfD is most likely going to result in a delete anyway judging from the number of opinions in favor of a delete I should have stayed cool. I am taking a little break... well kind of. I am working my way through the articles tagged as original research. That's how I found this one to begin with also. Thanks for the nice words, I return every compliment. Happy editing! 17:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: AfD - Meat in a Cone

Haha, I like your style, Cheers. Amists ^{talk • contribs} 14:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The AfD work never ends does it (I mean, Meat in a cone???) :-) Amists ^{talk • contribs} 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)