Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-12-21/In the news

Discuss this story

Martin

"No one could characterize the Wikipedia entry on my extraordinary life of public service and personal sacrifice as ‘neutral and impartial'". Wow, can't see you winning the 2009 Modesty Award. HonouraryMix (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on now. Who doesn't respect someone who reacts to being labeled a "vexatious litigant" by launching a lawsuit with no merit? Surely he deserves some credit for consistency? Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This is the best Andy can do? This loser doesn't point out any inconsistencies in the article, he just complains about the "jew conspiracies" of the world, sues anyone as part of a shakedown racket, and calls hack job reporting by marginal newspapers lies (insignificant hometown papers like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, etc.). Why wouldn't Wikipedia reflect on his higher accomplishments?... Could it be because there are none? — BQZip01 — ^talk 10:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best part of the press release is when he refers to himself as "insurgent 'Internet Powerhouse' Andy Martin." I don't know what that means (his professional wrestling moniker?), but it makes me happy. - Banyan Tree 07:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still trying to figure out what an "anti-Obama opponent smear operation" is... – ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ "Internet Powerhouse" Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? Maybe we should just delete the article. Give him a taste of what being un-notable is. It's what he deserves for launching meritless, toothless lawsuits. When I read that I loled. ResMar 15:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really worry about this maniac. The Foundation existed long before Obama was even a Senator.- Just Phil 12:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And who is this guy again, & why wasn't I informed that we were supposed to be presenting him in a bad light? (Oh yeah, the instructions must have been included in the pay check we all are supposed to be receiving.)</sarcasm> -- llywrch (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a very big pool. Some of its contributors do not live in the US. Some speak languages other than English. For some peculiar reason most people have not heard of Martin. Suggest he goes to Wikia and creates his own wiki - so everybody is happy. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'The name you can trust' - any connection to 'the trustworthy encyclopedia'? Should he not be the #doyen# of Illinois media and communications rather than the dean (unless he is running the whole show) ... and what exactly is a protosocialist? A predecessor of Karl Marx?

Following his line of argument - what is behind his change of surname? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellor

Lucky that happened to a journalist, he gets a story out of it! Any other random person would just get miffed. Yay! for open editing and news droughts. Rich Farmbrough, 06:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hehe, I wouldn't be surprised if he himself made the edit, just for the sake of having something to write about! --cremepuff222 (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellor is a journalist who has recently written about Wikipedia, but he is not a technology journalist. In a hole, stop digging! — Richardguk (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least his response was pithy and tongue-in-cheek, and he didn't call his lawyer at the first opportunity. – ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly his response showed a lot more maturity than ours. Protonk (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much more so than some of the younger, litigious politicians and other important people (*cough* Martin*cough*). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In life, if for a split second, one makes a mistake, one is usually forgiven. If, for instance, I happened to say, "two plus two is five--I mean four!" no one would accuse me of not actually knowing how to add. Mistakes in print sources, as well, are judged subjectively against their long term reputation for reliability or accuracy. However, short term mistakes in Wikipedia articles are not judged objectively against the actual length of time the article or detail was correct or subjectively against the overall reliability and accuracy of the article or Wikipedia. Hyacinth (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not the only ones! [1] Hyacinth (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is supa funni (Darkspartan4121 (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

At least he can join Mark Twain and others whose death has been much exaggerated (is there a WP list of such people?) Jackiespeel (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]