This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I am having trouble editing the critical thinking page. It won't except my changes. Can you help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancyorschel (talk • contribs) 14:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

		Ada Lovelace Award
		Hi Martin, Thank you for participating in the Ada Lovelace Day editathon! I'm presenting you with the Ada Lovelace Award for starting the Frances Hardcastle article. Your contributions are quite appreciated. Cheers, Gobōnobō + c 15:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks MartinPoulter for encouraging me to take my first tentative steps! Lmnapier (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Citation tools has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I have made some spelling correction to a page. But changes made by me are not visible any more. Please suggest why it is so or where I was wrong.

--Akaanksha Saxena (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you for helping to improve the CCPA article. I shall endeavour to learn from your improvements!

Kind regards NatalieBateman (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Childhood Cancer Parents Alliance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charity (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) 11:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you can move that page yourself. You may wish to search the title and red link it in the other articles first. After you move it I think it is more difficult to search because it lands you on the new article by that name. After you move it the red links will turn blue. If you are worried about a COI move then leave a note on my talk page or here and I can move it for you.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome and the info on citations. I am very new to this and completing edits as part of my masters course in Psychology - Group Dynamics. KDDory (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation! Lova Falk talk 11:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I am also very new at this. I think the APS Wikipedia Initiative is great idea, and started my History of Psych class on it last semester without having contributed to Wikipedia ever myself. It was a bumpy ride but I'm doing it again. Thanks for your offer of help. I'm sure I'll be taking you up on it. Best, Jim James Council (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have done my best but it seems your DYK is presently stalled. If you would like help on modifying the article, do let me know --Senra (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

	The Minor barnstar
	Substantial contributions and a methodically sound manner in working on or discussing the details of a subject or issue. Thanks a lot! 㓟 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well Dr.Poulter, thx for the cookies, I would like to know if there's anyway of requesting help from other wikipedians to work on a certain topics. --Lbertolotti (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Heuristics in judgment and decision making at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Senra (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to withdraw this nomination --Senra (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

'hello Martin

why do some acadmics shun Wikipedia.

Nigatt59 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! -Stephen McGlynn (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map

I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country on your sandbox and post it to the project proposal page?

United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox

Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The Wikimedia UK AGM will be held in June, and nominations for the UK Wikimedian of the Year are currently open. If there is someone who you feel has made an important contribution to the UK Wikimedia movement in the last year please go ahead and nominate them here by 09:00 (BST) on Monday 20th May at the latest. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to the Bristol Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Commercial Rooms, 43-45 Corn Street, Bristol BS1 1HT on Sunday 28 July 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Bristol topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you add your name Martin? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I wonder if you can help me? We are I suppose on opposite sides, I'm a Scientologist since 1974 and worked in PR to boot. However I have read Bare Faced Messiah and want to make some improvements to the Wikipedia page. I believe that you liked this book. I think I have been given a very hard time, I made an edit concerning the reference: " Among the private papers quoted in the book are a letter written by Hubbard to the FBI denouncing his wife as a Soviet spy, another in which he tells his daughter he is not really her father and an internal letter in which he suggests that Scientology should pursue religious status for business reasons.[12" in Background and synopsis. This is a lousy synopsis and its the opinion of a lawyer in a losing case in the US reported in the Washington Post. If you check you can see my edits of 14 June and 18 June which were arbitrarily deleted by Prioryman and Andrewman327. With regard to the first my point was that was not what was in the book. And the second, I don't see that saying that sources include "embittered Scientologists" is any different to saying that sources include FoI and stolen personal documents. It is fact not opinion. I made a few edits to the page in response to demonstrate how I felt I was being treated and have been accused by Prioryman of "disruptive editing" "June 2013" on my talk page.Drg55 (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are getting accused of "disruptive editing" because in your contributions you seem to think that Wikipedia's policies don't apply to you,[1] and you've been unduly hostile, e.g. accusing other editors of a "childish game".[2] It's okay not to know all the details of how Wikipedia articles are developed, but you have to be prepared to learn from the relevant policies or from other users. I can tell you more about your why some of your edits have had a bad reception, if you're interested. About this article in particular, I will reply on the Talk page. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, from my point of view the book was quite interesting, but

1. He seemed to get all the interesting FoI material that I recall was so hard to get, looks like a set up and the Church claims Hubbard's military record was doctored to remove his intelligence roles. We had a witness Fletcher Prouty. Heres a reference on that http://scientologymyths.com/hubbardww2.htm

2. The fact that the media backed the book looks like black propaganda ref http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SAUborWbPw Scientology continues to be against the abuse of psychiatric drugs which is worth billions internationally.

3. It lacked critical evaluation of the material. By definition the testimonies are from disaffected people as no Scientologist in good standing would have cooperated. In one passage two conflicting versions of events are given by different people.

4. The book overlooks Hubbard's tremendous output of lectures and books, around 100,000 pages and more, which many people have found tremendously valuable. Instead it just gives the embittered person's manufactured resentments at a time he was making tremendous production (bit like a biography of Mozart with no music and just whining about unpaid tailor's bills. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=GnXy0TPigw4C&pg=PA408&lpg=PA408&dq=mozart+unpaid+tailors+bills&source=bl&ots=1rrufveT-J&sig=n_wtyF_kkGEV--h7u-Docz3UUJY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nefCUcPaEMTQiAfbqIGwBA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=mozart%20unpaid%20tailors%20bills&f=false

5. The stolen diaries etc have been edited to sensational reasons leaving out many positive things to be found in the Church's recently released 16 volume biography.

6. Miller throws in the odd invented insult. He mentions for instance that LRH said he was Cecil Rhodes in a former life, and then that Rhodes was homosexual. Checking this I found no evidence beyond Rhodes never married.

7. Miller is clearly biased and caricatures Hubbard viciously. He shows no understanding of our religion, and only seeks to make light of it. The material I am reading currently is from 1953 and I looked up what he was talking about, it was drawn from Neoplatonism. Other material from 1952 was based on 2000 year old gnostic beliefs. Scientology is very well grounded as a religion which is why most scholars of New Religions recognise us as acknowledged even by our enemies. And while the UK has not recognised us this is in part because of the Church of England, a state religion and using that to compare what is religious.

8. Much emphasis was made on money, yet when Hubbard left the ship on one occasion he ate fish fingers and watched TV all day. There's no real evidence in the book of abuse of funds. And at the end of the book it acknowledges that the majority of his money went to the Church. It may be with good reason from past experience that he didn't trust people to safeguard our reserves.Drg55 (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you discussing this here? Please have this discussion in the Talk page of the article. For what it's worth, these points, and your or my subjective reactions to the book in general, are not suitable matter for the Wikipedia article about the book. If we write about what certain facts "look like" to you, or to me, then we're not writing an encyclopedia. That Hubbard's devoted followers wrote a 16 volume biography with many positive statements about him is not at all surprising, nor is it in any way a significant fact about the independently-written Bare-Faced Messiah. Many of your points seem to be non sequiturs. But again, here is not the place to have the discussion. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Martin. Regarding the recent changes at Template:Bullying, if you check this ANI thread back in April, Penbat was constantly wikihounded by Fladrif on several articles related to abuse and bullying, which also includes this template, to the point where he was unable to do any significant edits or participate in any discussions with him, as Penbat felt that he would be jumped on by Fladrif. Fladrif also seemed to align himself with the work of the banned user Star767. Fladrif was indefinitely blocked by Ched for personal attacks and chronic disruption (including the issues with Penbat and Fladrif) as indicated in that ANI thread. As far as I know, bans apply to all edits good or bad. In any case though, since consensus can change, do you think we should start a new discussion about this matter over on the template's talk page? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for giving some context that I was unaware of. What's sparked my worry is that Penbat 1) has reverted edits that were definitely improvements, 2) has reverted myself and other editors in good standing with edit summaries that state banned users are being reverted. Since there is more than one template where there is a problem, I think there needs to be some sort of table of the templates, issues with them, and any issues with Penbat's behaviour where those templates are criticised. Possibly the best place is as a subpage of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology. Then we can get hopefully a wider community of editors to look at the whole problem rather than individual templates. I know User:Penbat as a dedicated Wikipedian who does a lot of work improving articles in an area which has few good contributors, so I hope they can be persuaded to take on board the opinions of the (now quite a few) editors who have pointed out issues with these templates. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin,

congratulations on the new role, and thanks for joining WikiProject Open Access. I certainly see how the two might go well together, and some ideas around such interaction are collected in this presentation. Cheers, -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear MartinPoulter: Thank you for taking the time to comment on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/High-Probabilty Request Sequence article. I have substantially changed it, and I wonder if you could take another look and see if it is more acceptable now. Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin I have mentioned you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_drg55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg55 (talk • contribs) (UTC)

I've made another mention of you in a clarification for Yogesh.Drg55 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't made your edits: you have. If you want to convince people that you don't need to be blocked, it's better to talk about your own behaviour rather than someone else's. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi and congratulations on the new role! What do you think are the chances of archived JISC journals being freely released (for those which are out of copyright)? Specifically (for the moment) I'm interested in James Gall's Use of cylindrical projections for geographical astronomical, and scientific purposes (also apparently available at jiscjournalarchives.ac.uk). Someone with the relevant access could presumably download all such articles and release them as public domain because they're so old, but that could be rather a hassle and we all know the tragic story of Aaron Swartz. Any thoughts/insights? Am I missing something obvious? Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Trev and thanks for the interesting query. I will take it up with relevant people, though I can't promise instant results. It's great to have a specific example to argue from. Where you could help me further is by giving specific examples of things you would do if you had access to papers like this. Improve the James Gall article for one thing, but any other articles? Any other specific old journals you'd like to get your hands on? What on Wikipedia is lacking that these journals could help improve? Any further examples are grist to my mill. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A specific example would be additions to Gall–Peters projection, both text and also including a free image of Gall's original map. Content may be useful elsewhere too, e.g. James Gall, as you state. Off the top of my head, old documents such as Minutes of the Proceedings (Institution of Civil Engineers) could be useful from a historical perspective. Presumably the ICE would like to retain some sort of control over this stuff but the reality is that it's rather ancient and AFAIK copyright has expired in many cases. This historical information could be used by those without subscriptions to build articles, which could then be improved by current researchers/industry experts who have ready access to (and direct knowledge of) more recent developments. Article creation from scratch is currently more time consuming (and surely more daunting for new editors) than the improvement of existing articles. Doing a bit of a search on here I found GLAM/British Library/Books, which seems to have similar goals to this suggestion regarding journals. If I have any other ideas about how content could be used, I'll post back here. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Just had a really interesting meeting about this. I would have thought that at least some of this content would have copyright expired, but that's not the case. This content is licensed from commercial publishers who have scanned and catalogued it, and have rights to the digital scans in perpetuity. Apparently a difference between UK and US intellectual property law allows that. So until somebody scans the journals and releases those scans to the public domain, we won't get the benefit. However, the discussion did set off a dialogue about ways we can work together, maybe in getting access to specific bits of content. You're right about the British Library books project: that will release a great deal of content in a truly public domain manner. BL are in a position to do this because they actually own the books rather than licensing scans. I'll see what I can do to help you with the Gall-Peters projection article. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. The information that commercial publishers have been granted rights to digital scans they make does complicate things a little. However, if the copyright of the original printed content has expired then the old journals are in the public domain and simple faithful photographic reproductions can't have new copyright applied AIUI (unless there has been significant restoration work, etc.) I think it would be helpful to place a clarification request at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, where those more knowledgeable than me may be able to help. I'm happy to do this (and would point you there) unless you fancy initiating such a discussion yourself.

Previous discussions of some relevance (on Commons) which I found are:

• Aren't journal articles under copyright of some form?
• Author uploads of Nature Publishing Group figures
• Using images in scientific journal articles

There have also been previous discussions of some relevance here on en-wp:

• How can a journal publisher grant permission to use images en masse?
• Diagrams from scientific journals
• Use of Photos / Diagrams From Canadian Medical Journal 1946
• Image published in a 1957 medical journal - UK copyright
• Line drawing from pre 1970s science journal
• Images in Journal Articles

What do you think? Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks- this is really useful. I will have to look through these links because I'm not very aware of these past discussions. I think if there were a way under UK law to get this material as public domain, they would have already used it rather than subscribing, but we'll see. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note of thanks for your ongoing help with our series of Psyc3330 entries over the last few years. We're learning and improving as we go (albeit slowly) and appreciate your guidance and recognition of our efforts.

Thank you, Martin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stmeier (talk • contribs) 13:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As a virtual participant at the NIMR 2013 editathon, here is some virtual cake, as you missed out on the real cake on the day (with Rosalind Franklin's photograph 51 on top). Edwardx (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Martin Thank you for reviewing my first article (Winifred Brenchley). It was an orphan but now I have linked it from Rothamsted Research. However it is still showing as an orphan. How do I get rid of this message? Arrowgold (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)arrowgold

Hi Martin! Thanks for your support. It's very exciting to become a contributor and I'm glad you're around to help out. Have a great day! Cdedaj (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Psychology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

ambassador of open access
Thank you, user with scientific background promoting critical and scientific thinking: for quality articles such as Heuristics in judgment and decision making, for planning an article on a study of Parents and Children, for serving as an Expert outreach/Jisc Ambassador, for inviting discussion and voting for open access, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the Open Access Community Liaison for Wikimania 2014. I think you already know that one track of the conference is going to be open access, so I just thought I'd mention the page about it on the project wiki. Feel free to add your name to the list of interested Wikimedians! Lawsonstu (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I posted comments at Creating a brochure for English Wikisource related to your proposed project. I look forward to hearing more on your thoughts. You found a great way to promote WS! - DutchTreat (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I posted a few samples of Wikisource Frontpieces at Creating a brochure for English Wikisource. Let me know when your draft is ready! Cheers -- DutchTreat (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I have improved my citations and referencing for this article. Can the message at the top be removed now?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowgold (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea. I had been very busy, but I had just started editing a couple of articles again and to finish the day, I read the village pump, the signpost. Oh interesting, “Psychology on Wikipedia”… and I was totally unsuspecting of what I was about to read.
Thank you so much for your kind words! I am still quite shocked and very happy. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 17:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin,

Thank you for correcting my error in adding a paragraph to the Behavioral Economics article referring to my own work. I had not realized it was violating the rules, but on reading the definition of appearance of conflict of interest can see how it might well appear that way.

The edit was made at the behest of several colleagues, and essentially stated their comment on how the cited article relates to the field. What is an appropriate way to add such an edit -- explain that they can do so but it is out of bound for me to do so, since it looks like self-promotion?

Thanks.

Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeJeffrey (talk • contribs) 18:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

On 5 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Florence Margaret Durham, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that geneticist Florence Margaret Durham bred 6,983 guinea pigs for her study of whether daily doses of alcohol had hereditary effects? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Florence Margaret Durham. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello You helped me upload the page on Cecilia Glaisher this afternoon in Oxford at the women in science day editathon The page has been tagged and as i am very new to wiki i am not sure how to go about putting the links in the way he suggests - please could you email me some advice? Thank you - Caroline Caroline Marten (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) You could try posting a question at the Teahouse, as noted on your talk page. -- Trevj (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Thank you for the tidying up and link adding you have been doing. I am still finding my way around but hope the page now might meet wiki criteria and become un-tagged? all the best - Caroline Caroline Marten (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Good morning

Thank you again for all the help i got in getting this page corrected. And thank you for rmoving the box all the best, Caroline Caroline Marten (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Caroline. I've done some tidying up and we've each made a link from another article (I've linked from the article about the surname Glaisher). Almost all the tags are gone, but the article could do with more inline references: ideally, there should be an inline reference at the end of each paragraph, saying which source(s) that paragraph is based on. The article now is most of the way there. Cheers, MartinPoulter Jisc (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd think the next step for an article about a photographer and illustrator would be some examples of her work. In the normal course of events, the copyright will have elapsed by now (death of the author plus seventy years) so they can be shared through Wikimedia Commons and from there embedded in Wikipedia. Do you have ideas for how we get get some of Glaisher's work, or pictures of her, in digital form? MartinPoulter (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Martin Most of the images I have seen belong to Institutions and are not freely available. I'll have a look to see if I can find others that do not have copyright restrictions, and let you know. Caroline Caroline Marten (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Here you go!

Victor Grigas (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

		The Real-Life Barnstar
		For contributions to and organisation of various Wikimedia events in the UK — Rod talk 21:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

		Ada Lovelace Award
		Thank you for all of the effort you put into the Ada Lovelace events in October 2013. This is an award for coordinating the events in UK and for inspiring people to join the edit-a-thons --Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, MartinPoulter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you are a fellow researcher in the field of Psychology. While this might not necessarily fit your interests, I recently put significant edits into the Atkinson-Shiffrin memory model and nominated it for Good Article review. If you're interested and have the time, it would be great to get this reviewed by an experienced editor!

Thanks, Adam Blake (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ultimate Attribution Error Hello, Golanubi here. I hope this is the proper way to respond to your post on my talk page. That is posting on your talk page. On a broad level. I appreciate any changes to help improve the page. This was my first time in the Wiki-rodeo, so I apologize if everything wasn't up to par. My only reason for removing the section on reducing the UAE was because I felt it was underdeveloped and wanted to build upon the section. Looking back it seemed a bit rash to cut out a section of the page without first having prepared any edits. I welcome it back to the page, and sorry for removing it. I'll go over the page again to include more citations and footnotes. Thanks for the feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golanubi (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, MartinPoulter. I think you do really good work around Wikipedia. A few months ago, you pinged User:Penbat about some issues with the templates relating to psychology, like Bullying and Narcissism. When I informed him about the recent RFC on bullying months later (I consulted with User:Timtrent about opening that particular RFC as I felt that the April discussion went nowhere, but no forum shopping was ever intended on my part), here's what Penbat said about this: "I'm quite pissed off that quite a lot of stuff has been removed from the template and ideally i would want it returned to its original state (before Fladriff got involved) and certainly no more taken out. It only got raised as an issue when Fladriff & sock-puppet Star767 piled in. Anyway these days i have WikiBurnout and am trying to do as little as possible on Wiki. I don't have the stomach to get involved in Template talk:Bullying." And according to him, he is still around, but "[did not] have the stomach to work on complex or contentious work." For those reasons, he was not willing to participate in any of the template discussions for the reasons given by him, even the Narcissism one, but he did participate in the Bullying template discussion and expressed his concerns about it.

Also, to add some background information, Zeraeph has been banned per this arbitration decision (and no, that problem did not start with me). Penbat does have a long history with that user, who has driven off Wikipedians from editing psychology articles, and he already asked me to revert some of Zeraeph's latest sockpuppet Farrajak's edits before you reversed some of them to Farrajak's version and it got raised as an issue (this edit does not seem to be valid to me nor Penbat, but I do agree that you are not a sockpuppet of Zeraeph, as you and that user are two different people but I still have doubts about Farrajak's edits and concerns on the Narcissism template, given her disruptive edits on psychology articles in general per her contribution history). I would like to quote the WP:BAN policy: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." As such, anyone is free to revert Zeraeph/Farrajak/Star767's edits if they are not constructive. Penbat admitted that "its virtually impossible to forensically dissect the good stuff from the bad stuff" when he reverted her edits. Even if some of this individual's concerns on the narcissism appear to be valid, such as in this Narcissism template reduction matter back in June, part of Zeraeph/Farrajak/Star767's modus operandi are ripping out cited text from psychology articles (see User_talk:Star767#Problems_with_your_work_on_Wikipedia), having a strong dislike of over categorization ([3], [4]) completely downplaying the narcissism topic ([5], [6], [7], [8]), and attempting to berate contributors who know more about the subject than she does (which drove some editors off, and she had issues with Penbat as well to this day due to her actions), and that "there is no evidence that Zeraeph has any relevant academic qualifications in the areas of Wikipedia that she administers." Also, not every single edit from Zeraeph/Farrajak/Star767 was disruptive in my view, but most of it was (see this SPI investigation, in which Penbat took part and compared Star767's and Farrajak's actions).

Please note that I have been busy with other issues as well (and took a two-month semi-retirement from Wikipedia from August to October), so I apologize if I did not have time to respond to some of your comments. No personal attacks are intended, as I hold a strict policy advising against them. My goals in this matter with the whole template dispute were to help gain a broader consensus on some issues and help Penbat get involved, as I found that some of the consensus were limited and Penbat's edits were valid, as he is a well-respected and valued editor like myself (we joined in 2006 as well). Unfortunately, while I partly agree with some of the consensuses regarding the templates, I still felt that we did not get a consensus on Template talk:Bullying and this discussion has went on long enough, hence that's why I had to raise the RFC on this template's link inclusion matter. After that, it became clear that there is consensus against inclusion, but it can always change later. I don't know if we do need a closure on the RFC on psychology templates, since I felt that we gained a limited number of consensus amongst some editors, but I think we might and we can always come back to it later (consensus can change, after all). I sure hope my comments clear up some misunderstandings about these issues, as I felt there was concerns that were needed to be raised. For future RFCs, I think reading this page should be valuable. I've asked Penbat and Timtrent on what their thoughts are about this matter as well. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts on the Bullying template are to let it take its chances (did we ever not?) and change gradually or suddenly as consensus at that time moves it. The arguments have become a waste of my life! At any time that I attempted rational argument I found no-one, except, ironically, Fladrif, was interested, though that is unfair to others who joined in such as Technical 13 who were robust in joining the arguments. The RfC got nowhere. I found I was wondering whether this was because bullying is endemic in the human psyche and "we" do not wish to have it categorised lest we are categorised ourselves.

I'm not really sure where one goes from here on this topic. Fiddle Faddle 09:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I suspect you might be a bit busy with your JISC role, but do you still do more general editing? If so can you give some advice. I've started doing some editing on Agapemonites because there is a chapter about them in a book I picked up & it happens that most of their activity was in Somerset. I'm used to writing about architecture etc but less familiar with "cults", "sects" or whatever the appropriate term is. Can you point me to any similar type articles which could help with structure, tone etc?— Rod ^talk 21:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Gary Roy Geffken. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

For anyone wondering, this was me withdrawing my own nomination when consensus had already developed to keep. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Per your question at Geffen AfD, it's similar to law: the thresholds are not statutory, but are rather enshrined in the precedents of hundreds of prior AfDs. This aspect often trips-up newcomers to academics' AfD. In general, AfDs furnish a valuable mechanism to "test" articles, which helps prevent WP becoming overwhelmed with cruft. I hope you will participate more over there. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC).

Hello,

Myself and 3 fellow students are working on improving the Uncertainty reduction theory page on Wikipedia as part of a class project at the University of Hull which can be found here. I noticed that you rcently made a lot of changes to recently relating to citations and referencing. As a question, were there any other things that you noticed in that article that needed changing or, if not, are there any related articles that you know of that might need editing? I eagerly await your reply. --RStoakes (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello @RStoakes: I've made some comments on the Talk page of that article. My edits are just aimed to bring things into Wikipedia house style: you are the content experts, so any content suggestions I'll make on the Talk pages. I haven't any suggestions for other articles at the moment. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Martin,

Thank you for your introduction (and cookies) to welcome me to Wikipedia.

I am currently working on a page as a part of my University course, the page is Social penetration theory

Archiedale1204 (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Archiedale1204: I've put my comments at Talk:Social_penetration_theory#Improvements_needed_to_this_article. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again.

Sorry for being a bit late to say this, but on behalf of the group I was working with and my own, thank you very much for your suggestions and input on the changes to the Uncertainty Reduction Theory article. It has been extremely helpful to us all. Hope all's well and good luck in whatever endeavors you have ahead. --RStoakes (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help Martin, there is one thing you can help me with - on the BSRA wiki you've helped with it now links me (James Brown) to the dead soul/R&B singer. Can we get this removed please? Many Thanks Coloneldr (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Coloneldr: Since you don't seem to have a Wikipedia biography, I've removed the link from that text by deleting the brackets around the name. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for your help in my project. Rosiesievers20 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Martin,

Thanks for all the help in me and my group's wikipedia project on social penetration theory. This star is a token of my thanks, and good luck in your future works :)

--Rosiesievers20 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	This barn star is to thankyou for the help you gave me and my group on the Expectancy violation Theory Article Natbrock (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Thank you so very much for the many interactions with our students on the Psychology of Internet Behaviour module at the University of Hull's Scarborough Campus. Many of them can clearly see that their experience with learning how to edit Wikipedia has been greatly enhanced through your input. -- ToniSant (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:ToniSant, User:Natbrock, User:Rosiesievers20, User:RStoakes and User:Archiedale1204. Pleasure working with you on these interesting articles. Just wish I'd had the time to interact more. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi MartinPoulter, I would request you to have a look at my submission here for wikimania 2014. Please feel free to give your suggestions, if any. --arunbandana 16:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is to request you to have a look at the presentation that I have submitted for Wikimania 2014 and give your valuable inputs. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a new student assignment issue, a student is intending to work on a stub - flexibility (personality). However I don't think anybody realized (including the creator of flexibility (personality) that a closely related article cognitive flexibility, which is at a high standard, already existed. There is no point in doing this assignment just for the sake of it. This is more your area of expertise than mine and I see that you have previously communicated with this group. See Talk:Flexibility (personality). I have also commented at User talk:Greta Munger and User talk:Margaret Cookson.--Penbat (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there,

I have seen you have been involved in the edits to the page regarding the Uncertainty reduction theory and would like your advice with including conceptual models to work with the text to give users a better understanding on the theory. I have done two different diagrams to show different aspects of the theory.

I have done a version of the conceptual model by Heath & Bryant (1999) which displays the process of communication (entry, personal, exit). The other table shows the types of strategies implemented within the theory for communication.

Can any of these be used to aid the article? I'm also looking at copyright protocols for the Heath & Bryant (1999) image as I wouldn't want that to affect this. Any advice would be highly appreciated!

DDLancaster (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Praise to you for "I believe this work deserves praise as advancing free knowledge in its truest sense" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I really appreciate your kind words Gerda. I hope my nomination is successful and I think I've made a good case. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You can now use ((Authority control)) to put your ORCID (and other) identifiers on your Wikidata user page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The ORCID revolution goes on and on! Thanks for the notification Andy. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Martin! Johnbod suggested I reach out to you for feedback on a handout I'm working on for student editors in the US/Canada program who are working on psychology articles. My draft is here, and I'd love any feedback: User:LiAnna (Wiki Ed)/Psychology handout. Any chance you have some time to review it in the next week? On an unrelated note, I hope to see you at Wikimania again this year! --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi LiAnna. Sorry I missed you at the education weekend- I heard great things about it from those who went. I will definitely be at Wikimania and the pre-conference workshop, but at the moment I'm overloaded with things to do, and it's a queue that's ever growing, so apologies for slow replies. Help for psychology students is a topic I'm very interested in, but I need to get other things out of the way. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Martin,

I am translating the confirmation bias article into Thai, and have a question about the Venn diagram. The middle label "Positive test:Decisive Falsification" confuses me. It seems to me that "Negative test:Decisive Falsification" would make more sense because of two reasons. Firstly, since the subject is testing outside their hypothesis, then they are looking to falsify their theory - isn't this a negative test? Secondly, this Venn diagram seems to be the depiction of the original Wason's test, in which Clayman & Ha are saying (implying?) that it would be more fruitful to use a negative test to falsify the hypothesis.

I (and maybe some Thai) would appreciate your shedding some light about this. --Tikmok (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tikmok: Firstly, thank you for translating the article. You are absolutely right about the diagram. I, several reviewers and countless readers have all missed this error and you're the first to point it out. When I get around to it, I will replace the SVG file. Thanks again, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking again, the error was not there when the file was reviewed, and was only recently introduced when another user tidied up the file. My faith in the close reading of Wikipedia reviewers is restored! ;) I've uploaded a corrected version. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Martin, thanks for addressing the question (and for the very informative article). I agree that there seem to be different levels of reading Wikipedia articles. I myself wouldn't pay as close an attention unless I'm translating (then I can't sweep things under the rug) or I really need the details. Thanks again.--Tikmok (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

ambassador of open access
Thank you, user with scientific background promoting critical and scientific thinking: for quality articles such as Heuristics in judgment and decision making, for planning an article on a study of Parents and Children, for serving as an Expert outreach/Jisc Ambassador, for inviting discussion and voting for open access, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, User:Gerda Arendt - your appreciation is much appreciated. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I was updating the bio page for Danny O'Connor when I noticed the Bray Wanderers Current Squad at the foot was out of date. I went to that page and updated it, but the changes don't seem to carry over to the O'Connor page. Is there something I've overlooked? Ohuanam (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)