User talk:Paul Martin/Archiv 01

I will try and format according to your wishes. Have a look at my recent contributions to see if there are other areas where we share the same interests. We seem to be in pretty close agreement on ancient systems.

Rktect 19:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets?

Olessi and Waterguy

By exactly what rationale do you consider me to be a sockpuppet of Wechselstrom as suggested in this edit? Olessi 18:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Olessi,
excuse a lot if I made a mistake. I only saw the close (and confirmed) relationship Wechselstrom/Tox. I took this for two pseudo for the same person. In reality, he is his own brother. Then I saw that Special:Contributions/Tom1907 was especially created for an intervention at the Talk:Fairway Rock Island page and first to participate at a self-organisated vote session.

I was angry. I took a quick look at your contributions and remarked some similitudes and I put you and User:Waterguy surely wrongly into to same sack.
I present you and Waterguy my formal and sincere excuses.

It's true I like polemics. But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong! I hope you can accept and we rest without rancor.

--Paul Martin 11:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you did make a mistake. ;-) I came by the Fairway Rock page through Requested Moves; I had never heard of any of the posters on the talk page before. I understand how tempers can flare easily on Wikipedia, but before I post while agitated, I try to take a break and work on some unaffiliated articles to cool down. I do accept your apology, and I remind you not to make unproven accusations while in the heat of a discussion. Olessi 20:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Olessi for your reply. You are entirely right. I'll try to heed your justified advices. Have a good day. --Paul Martin 20:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom1907

Your dispute with Wechselstrom relates to Florencetime. I was prompted to register by the vote to move Fairway Rock Island to "Fairway Rock". There's no connection between the two, so what's the evidence I'm a sockpuppet? Even you had agreed to the move, so there was no need to stack the vote.

In the interest of full disclosure, Wechelstrom and Tox are old friends of mine, and they initially led me to the Fairway Rock article. I became interested, particularly in the question of the islet's name, and on November 12th I directed Tox to the Columbia Gazetteer entry which Tox added as a reference on the 14th. Also on the 12th (this edit), I anonymously altered the introductory paragraph to read "Fairway Rock" rather than "Fairway Rock Island" (which perhaps I shouldn't have done before the question of moving the article had been brought up). When I saw the issue up for a vote on the 18th, I finally registered with Wikipedia, having been an unregistered user for many years. I didn't feel comfortable voting anonymously. "Tom1907" is a variation on my real name that Wechelstrom and Tox did not immediately recognize, which is why they denied knowing me: they didn't know who I was.

I hope this clears things up. I didn't mean to cause confusion, I just wanted to vote on an issue that (although purely academic) mattered to me.

--Tom1907 16:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you are Wechselstrom's and Tox's 98-years-old grand-father, Tom Rogers senior. Like you was "an unregistered user for many years" you should know that's a good use in Wikipedia that only "registered users since a several time" participate for votings.
--Paul Martin 17:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not a blood relation of any sort of Tox and Wechseltrom.

Second, if it was inappropriate of me to vote without having been a registered user prior to doing so, then I apologize. But can you point me in the direction of the policy or guideline that disallows that? I don't see it in Wikipedia:Voting policy.

--Tom1907 19:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All this, I don't give a damn about.

You can be their great-grandmother mother-sided or a 98-years-old school-friend of an uncle. Whatever you want. I refuse to present you my excuses, in spite of your Methusalem age. A (since many years Wikipedia-) user who don't know that it is bad style to login first specially to participate (for a not contested) vote (what's a joke!) not merit my consideration. This, even if ilk proceeding is not explicitly prohibited by the "Wikipedia Voting policy". Such somebody is always rightly treated to be a sockpuppet. E.O.D. -- Paul Martin 20:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Change your login. Perhaps this will be the best.

I have participated in votes before in which both new Wikipedians and longtime but newly-registered Wikipedians were welcomed and told their opinions mattered. My friend had an honest interest in the article on Fairway Rock, and no alterior motive in voting. Frankly, I've always felt that giving people the benefit of the doubt was the Wikipedian way. Instead, you make off-the-cuff personal attacks on total strangers and then try to involve my entire family in some sort of conspiracy over a noncontroversial vote to move a page because of an error in its title. First, my grandfather's name was not "Tom Rogers senior" and second, he passed away a few years ago. Like my brother, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making public speculations about our family members. —Tox 00:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Long and short scales

Paul, I've reverted your changes to this article for reasons that I've explained in Talk:Long and short scales. This article has a history of edit wars - please discuss your proposed changes. Thanks, Ian Cairns 12:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we'll see this later on.
Now, I don't have the time, neither it's urgent. There we can see to find a version acceptable for both (and without grammar faults. I am pleased to confirm my agreement.)
Paul Martin 12:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

On zero and first

Added info on book, pages, zero, and first on Talk:Year_zero#Zero_and_First

1980s/199th Decade

Hello, I noted on the 1980s article that you have inserted a point about the 199th decade and also removed a seperate point about the informal use of "1980s" to refer to late70s/early90s. I would like to ask why did you remove the latter point? I didn't originally insert it but it seems to me to be valid - for instance here in the UK the Thatcher government is usually associated with the 1980s, though she was in power from 1979 to 1990. That doesn't mean that the usage is strictly correct, just that sometimes in conversation it might be used that way. As for your point about the 199th decade, perhaps you could reword it? I know you are correct but I think another user removed it from the article a couple of weeks ago because of how it was written. -- Matthew Humphreys 01:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern world

Please don't do cut and paste moves, like you did on modern world, as it destroys the page history. If you can't do a move, ask for help on wikipedia:requested moves. Note that I am not in favour of the move. Graham talk 13:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It violates the Gnu Free Documentation License, which is what wikipedia is based on. There is no alternative procedure. Why do you want to move it? I probably won't be able to respond for a while ... Graham talk

Paul, before you start moving material around, it's probably a good idea for you to get a feel for how things work around here. Although I agree in principle that the "Modern Times" film may not be the major use, the old (film) "Modern Times" had a link to a disambiguation page. Because you did a cut-and-paste copy of an article (which obscures the history and means there are two copies of the same thing, which is pointless and means we have to keep them in synch), you overwrote the link to Modern Times (disambiguation); so anyone searching for the meanings given there wouldn't find them on the new Modern Times page nor would they know that they were there without (implausibly) visiting Modern Times (film).

If this sounds confusing, well... the set up as it stands now is more confusing than it was before. As I said, I agree with your motives, but please learn a bit more about the way these things generally work before you change them round.

Yeah, I know the Wikipedia motto is "be bold"... so I aplogise if this comes across as too heavy handed. Also, the problem was made worse by the changes that were put on top of your stuff by Graham87 (not that I'm claiming that his edits- in isolation- were bad).

Fourohfour 14:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problems. Graham87 was right. Cut and past moves are always bad styl. -- Paul Martin 18:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm happy now as well. I'm sorry for any inconvenience ... I should check page histories more carefully. Graham talk 09:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, *what* are you doing with the Modern Times pages?! You redirected talk:Modern Times to the disambig page and erased my comment. This is really not on. Everything else I have to say on this has been added to talk:Modern Times. Fourohfour 10:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what you did above, I just notice that you altered the links in my comment. This is not acceptable, because it totally changes the meaning of what I said. Whilst it is sometimes de facto acceptable behaviour to change things within comments if the text/meaning of the comment itself is not changed, that was not the case here.

I appreciate that your intentions were honourable, and I don't want to be rude, but please leave these articles where they are just now. Fourohfour 10:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

France in modern times

I'm not sure the move/article name change of France in the nineteenth century into "France in modern times I (1792-1920)" is entirely successful, and the new name for France in modern times (France in Modern Times II (1920 et sqq.)) is unfortunate. There was a logic behind "France in the nineteenth century" (see the debates on the discussion page of History of France), as the expression "long nineteenth century" (cf Hobsbawm, et. al.), ending at the eve of the First World War, has gained critical acceptance. You may want to discuss such major changes on the discussion page before putting them into effect. --NYArtsnWords 20:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The long 19th century has – like you say it rightly – "gained [a] critical acceptance". This means, until now it is not "widely accepted" (and beside will never be!).
To cut French modern history in a "older part" including WWI with the Treaty of Versailles and in a contemporary part since 1920 is more than legitim.
But of course we can discuss this more in detail on the respective talk pages.

Thanks for your message, Paul Martin 20:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]