Hello, Martinvl, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia!
You may want to begin by reading these pages :
- Links to useful pages
- How to write Simple English pages
- How to copy from another Wikipedia
You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen immediately. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on talk pages, please sign your name by typing "~~~~" (four tildes)
Good luck and happy changing! - Ottava Rima 22:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi! This article turned out looking fantastic! Please feel free to adjust any of the content that I added, it was just a quick translation and, to be honest, I wasn't expecting you to come back (we're used to users leaving suggestions and then never coming back to them..) It's always a welcome surprise to see an editor who both sticks around and is conscious about difficulty levels. Osiris (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Thrasymedes
- Since I have removed the WP:PGA application, it is more appropriate that we discuss the article on the article's talk page. If you go there, you will see that we agreed to target the article Metric system at younger readers and the article International System of Units at readers who had a sound understanding of science, but not of English. This was the result of a discussion at Talk:International System of Units#metric system. Martinvl (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion you refer to is not a consensus – talking and working together to make decisions – it is you stating your opinion with no other discussion. I think Osiris may have not been refering to what you said but to what Jimp said and meant that a separate article on the metric system had been created. Therefore, targeting the article Metric system at younger readers is not something we have a consensus on yet. I encourage more editors to give their opinion. --Thrasymedes (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Martin, a word of advice, based on the rules for this Wikipedia site. Can you please ensure that when you add content to articles here, especially large amounts as you have done to Metric System and Metre Convention, which clearly borrows heavily from similar articles on the full English Wikipedia, please be courteous enough (and to comply with copyright law) to acknowledge the base source of your information in the edit summary. See Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia. As it's now too late to do that though, you now need to, promptly, add the attribution template to the talkpages of the articles concerned here, as described in the rules. If you do not comply with the attribution requirements, offending articles may be blanked. Keep up the good work though - just remember "rules is rules". ;-) Centaur (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I was the editor in the full English Wikipedia article, so no harm done. Martinvl (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well no, you weren't the sole editor of either of those articles there, so we still need full and correct attribution to comply with the rules here on this. Centaur (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind, but because I hope to help you with these articles, I've added the templates to ensure that our work isn't deleted for copyright infringements. Centaur (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Osiris
- Thank you for your help. The route diagram templates can get tricky and on reading the documentation, it appears that a group in Russia are making a new set. I have successfully added distances to the route diagrams for two of the London underground route maps, (See User:Martinvl/sandbox2) but the third has proved to be too complex as it appears to be using the new templates. I need to carefully read the documentation first. Martinvl (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. From what I can see, it uses eight templates that we don't have. Do you want to try it with the full eight copied over? You need:
- Osiris (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Martinvl, please add supporting (reliable) sources for the additions you made to the System of measurement article. Because, as it says in Wikipedia:Citing sources, "If someone sees that there is information in an article that does not have a source, then the information may be removed." Centaur (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- What you wrote did not reflect the source that you quoted. You skipped over the word "metric". (If you don't understand the word "metric", may I suggest that you look at en:Performance metric or en:Software metric. You replaced the word "measure" with "unit of measurement". The is a big difference between the two. If I give you a rating of "X out of 10" for some work that you did, then I have given you a measure of what I think of your work, but it is certainly not a "unit of measurement". Martinvl (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Please Martinvl, while there is an ongoing discussion about it on the article's talkpage, please do not remove mentions of "system of measurement" from the Metric System article. That phrase has been there since the article was created, and unilaterally removing it whilst the discussion continues could be seen as very discourteous. Centaur (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Railway line templatesEdit
I noticed that you made some changes to templates for various railway lines. As far as I can see, some of the changes, such as adding distances, are not in the templates on English Wikipedia ("enwiki"). This makes it harder for us to keep our templates in synch with enwiki. Except where needed for simplifying, we try to keep templates here as much like the enwiki versions as possible. Please do not add this kind of information to the templates here without discussing first. Please undo the changes that make these templates different, and discuss the changes at Wikipedia:Simple talk before putting them back. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring on measurement articlesEdit
You and Centaur have been edit warring in various articles in topics related to measurement. Because of that, I am imposing a topic ban on both of you: effective immediately, you are both forbidden to do any content editing related to those topics. If you violate this topic ban, you will be blocked from all editing here until the issues can be evaluated. I have seen your complaint at WP:AN#Disruption by User:Centaur (aka DeFacto), and I will look at the articles you listed. If you wish to comment on this, please do so at WP:AN#Administrator response. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi User:Auntof6
- Do you regard the article Planck constant as falling within the scope of this topic ban? The last section of that article discusses a proposal that it be used to define the kilogram. Martinvl (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I request permission to work on all parts of the Planck constant so that I can prepare it for presentations as a Good Article. The section on measurement is less than 10% of the article and relates to quantum mechanics rather than everyday measurements. In the past DeFacto has never touched anything as technical as this. Martinvl (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Point of interestEdit
I wish to appeal this block. The grounds for my appeal are:
- The sanctions against me on enWiki were tainted by, amongst other things, malice and canvassing on the part of the ANI proposer. The full extent of the proposer's malice only became fully apparent after my block was imposed.
- The WP:ONESTRIKE policy in Simple is an inappropriate remedy when one party is trying to contribute usefully to the project and the other is determined to cause disruption using a "suicide bomber" technique.
I submit that either of the above is sufficient to remove the sanctions against me on Simple.
My activities on enWikiEdit
May I draw to the attention of the Simple administrators that there was considerable "dirty play" in the ANI that led up to sanctions against me on enWiki. Incidents that took place during the investigation include:
- WP:FALSECONSENSUS by the promoter of the original ANI. (My formal accusations are here). At the time I did not know of the essay. Had I known of its existence, I could have dirty play in the bud. It should be noted that this complaint was posted within minutes of the ANI being opened, but they are now hidden from sight.
- Wrongly accusing of edit-warring when I was trying to contain a DeFacto sockpuppet. (See the last posting of this discussion). The tone of the accusation implied a sense of urgency and fooled an uninvolved administrator to skim-read a 8000 word ANI complaint in just 17 minutes (which means processing seven words a second!). This gave me no time to respond to the false accusation and to formally launch a en:WP:SPA against the sockpuppet concerend. As a result, the administrator concerned created a "blue-on-blue" incident when he served me with a topic ban.
- Three days after my block was confirmed, the proposer of the original ANI launched an RFC on the topic. I believe that he was "clearing the deck" prior to launching this RFC.
This shows that the action taken against me on enWiki was tainted. I request therefore that the Simple administrators distance themselves from such action by disregarding the sanctions issued against me on enWiki. There were actions by others that tainted the investigation further. I do not wish to publicise these actions at the current time but will respond to private requests from any Simple administrator.
User:DeFacto sent in a "suicide bomber" in the form of a sockpuppet called User:Centaur to cause trouble. The success Centaur's mission was dependant on the trouble that was caused. DeFacto developed this tactic during 2013 to reduce the effectiveness of CheckUser on enWiki. By banning me, you are giving DeFacto a victory. I do not believe that WP:ONESTRIKE was formulated to enhance the actions of "suicide bombers". This episode is a perfect example of when ONESTRIKE should NOT to be used. May I catalogue few of what I believe to be "suicide missions" launched by DeFacto on enWiki:
- en: User talk:Up and in – Disrupted articles on which I was working in respect of 19th Century Afrikaner politics. In this change he demonstrated his ignorance of Dutch and here he showed further ignorance of South African affairs by contradicting the view of many reputable sources.
- en: User:FishGF – This account was set up with the sole purpose of blocking the promotion of the articles en: History of the metric system and en: International System of Units to Good Article status.
- en:User:EzEdit – Set up to disrupt the article en:Imperial and US customary measurement systems of which I was the principal contributor. I wrote the article to fill a gap in enWiki's 1000 en: Wikipedia:Vital articles. EzEdit's disruptive tactics included:
- A proposal to merge the article into the article en: Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems
- Attempts to remove any mention of the article in en: Template talk:Systems of measurement even though the article is one of
In all instances the "suicide bomber" failed the WP:QUACK test but survived the SPI because the CheckUser could not confirm any links between them and DeFacto. EzEdit was unmasked on a second attempt. The other two have been inactive since their respective SPIs were launched even though they survived the SPI test. I believe that their inactivity is due to them having been discarded. I believe that the above shows DeFacto/Centaur as being the trouble-maker and me the victim of his trouble-making. Blocking me is effectively submitting to blackmail on the part of DeFacto/Centaur. Martinvl (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Will Rschen7754 please justify his assertion that I was pushing a POV on Simple. I was going out of my way to present things in as neutral a manner as possible. I would also like Rschen7754 to justify his comments regarding my activity on enWiki or to rescind them. Martinvl (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- I saw DJSasso's and TCN7JM's responses to my block appeal. Firstly, I should note that DJSasso has a COI as he imposed the block in the first place. Secondly it appears to me that both respondents are advocating sacrificing Wikipedia's neutrality to appease a blackmailer who employs "suicide bombers". If they are concerned about the way in which sockpuppets can hold Wikipedia to ransom (which is what DeFacto has been doing) they should be looking at ways of making Wikipedia's defences against Sockpuppets more robust rather than removing editors who are making valuable contributions to Wikipedia.
- In response to TCN7JM, it is also very time-consuming for me as well presenting one case after the other against various sockpuppets of DeFacto. At the moment the image in the lede of article en: Metrication in the United Kingdom depicts a sign that is unlawful in the United Kingdom. Depicting unlawful activities as though they are lawful is not good for Wikipedia's image. I believe that the editor who made that change is another sockpuppet of DeFacto. Martinvl (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I notice that both DJSasso and TCN7JM are Americans. I have never visited the US, so maybe they would like to comment on this change. In my view, the original version (which is what I wrote) is a genuine attempt at presenting both side of the argument in a few sentences using simple language. DeFacto/Centaur's changes are, in my view, a blatant attempt to discredit the article. Martinvl (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that lifting the block would not remove the topic ban: those are separate things. If you wish the topic ban to be lifted as well, please keep it a separate issue, to be discussed only after the block is lifted. I ask this because you're already asking us to consider a lot of details, and it's better to keep the discussion as clean as possible. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- On that note, if you have any issues with your sanction(s) on EN and believe that the proposer of your ANI case acted with malice, kindly take it up to Arbcom. Until then, administrators on this wiki are still going to honour the decision made on EN and will take it into consideration, when reviewing your case over here and when it is necessary to do so (refer to EN history). Chenzw Talk 01:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Djsasso, Chenzw, Auntof6: You were all involved with this block 3 years ago, could you take a look into it and give insight on unblocking? Thanks, Only (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- I can look at more detail later, when I'm not on my tablet. For now, I will point out that there is the topic ban to consider in addition to the block. Some of the specific articles the user wants to work on are included under the topic ban, which prohibits editing anything related to measurement. I also note that this block was done (by Djsasso) as a WP:ONESTRIKE block, and the user is still blocked on enwiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Based on his request, it seems to me that he still blames someone else for the actions he himself took. He does not seem to understand the issues were his own actions, not those of someone else. He is still blocked on en.wiki so I am inclined to leave him blocked here until such a time as his en block is lifted. Also he would be topic banned from editing the articles he wants to edit anyway as Auntof6 mentions. -DJSasso (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Djsasso, Chenzw, Auntof6: I am not sure what the original reasons were for my block. Will someone please identify the specific actions that led to my block and explain to me what alternative action I should have taken at the time. In this way I will know exactly what is expected on me, or alternatively, if there was a misunderstanding, this can be sorted out.Martinvl (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Auntof6, Djsasso, Chenzw, Eptalon, Acroterion: Half an hour ago, User:Eptalon blocked User:Fück your mother hard. It might be worth somebody checking his/her changes. I have also noticed that his/her account was blocked by User:Acroterion on the English Wikipedia. Here again it might be worthwhile somebody checking his/her changes. Martinvl (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Possible WP:OR or WP:SYNEdit
@Auntof6, Djsasso, Chenzw: Will one of you please visit the section "Planck_constant#Value_of_Theoretical_Planck_constant". If you look at the tone of the supporting citation, it has all the hallmarks of WP:OR or WP:SYN. Moreover, even if the relationship quoted is correct, its interpretation is incorrect. If you want more details as to why the interpretation is incorrect, please let me know and I will demolish the editor's argument. Martinvl (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Auntof6, Djsasso: May I draw to attention that I have updated the map on the right in Commons to reflect the situation as of 1 January 2021. This image is included in the article International Bank Account Number where it has automatically been updated, but the caption (which is not automatically updated) still says "1 January 2014". Martinvl (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)