User talk:DarknessShines2/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

American Policy Center

Here's what I found. As usual, I hid the article text (this time in footnotes). Just edit this section to read: Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• LEFT, RIGHT TO PROTEST QUEBEC TALKS; Security Tight At Summit; [National Edition] Julie Smyth. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Aug 18, 2007. pg. A.4
• Would Jesus Drive a Gas Guzzling SUV? BOB MIMS. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Jun 23, 2001. pg. C.2
• Advocates push reparations to descendants of slaves; [FIRST Edition] John Bacon. USA TODAY. McLean, Va.: Feb 5, 2001. pg. 03.A
• Conspiracy du jour; [Final Edition], Lars-Erik Nelson. Las Vegas Review - Journal. Las Vegas, Nev.: Jun 12, 1998. pg. 17.b
• American Policy Center Urges Senate to Defeat Careers Act Bill, U.S. Newswire. Washington: Apr 1, 1998. pg. 1.

• Goode, Stephen. "Conservative activist DeWeese keeps fighting for freedom." Insight on the News 5 Jan. 1998: 31+.

• You don't need to have the urls to use them as refs. I expect that most of these articles are not available online anywhere. Notice that most of the refs I used here don't have urls. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought you had to have a url so people would know the info was verifiable? Cool, thanks a lot :-) mark nutley (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I can remember a time when, to look up old magazine or newspaper articles, one had to trek on down to the library and look at microfishe. Contrary to popular belief, the Internet has not replaced the library. Even access to Infotrac or NewsStand doesn't fix it, as those two databases only go back to around 1990. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Marknutley

Outcome of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Marknutley:

• Marknutley is blocked for 48 hours for incivility. Marknutley is restricted to one revert per 24 hour period to any article in the probation area until 2010-10-01. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, however was my request to continue to work on my current wips not taken into account? Can we not do what we did the last time i was blocked and i do not edit any articles in the probation area? mark nutley (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want a conditional unblock to work in your userspace only for the duration, I'd be happy to do that. I don't think 2/0 would mind, although we can wait for his response. MastCell ^Talk 19:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mastcell, that is all i require, to be able to continue working on my wips. 2/0 was cool with this deal the last time he blocked me so hopefully he still will be :-) mark nutley (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 unblocked to work in userspace I like it when people add content - good luck. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I cleared an autoblock - please use {{adminhelp}} if anything weird happens. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:The_hockey_stick_illusion.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:The_hockey_stick_illusion.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hockey stick illusion

Looks to be a good start to me. I have written a GA on a book here. Some suggestions:

• You should scan the book cover and use that as the image in the infobox. Check the image in the book article I link to above for the appropriate license tag.
• Try to write a Background section on the hockey stick controversy and what previous role the book's author had (if any) in it.
• Expand the synopsis to three or four medium-length paragraphs. Make sure the synopsis does not appear to be accepting what the book says as fact. The reader should not be able to tell what side you are taking on the book's veracity and validity.
• The reception section probably shouldn't reference blogs like Watts Up. Newspaper and magazine articles, book reviews, and opinion columns are fine. If any negative reviews of the book are out there in RS, those should be included also, either all first or last in the section. I can check the databases if you like for any.
• You should format the references correctly and fully, like what was done in the DeSmogBlog or the Glimpse article. Cla68 (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, with regards to negative crits, i`m damned if i can find one, and i have tried. I`ll follow your suggestions and give you another shout when i think tis done. Thanks a lot mark nutley (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you might be surprised at how quickly negative opinions of this book will appear in the article once you've posted it. I'll do an Infotrac and ProQuest search to see what I can turn up. Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi after reading the above, if I can add my two pence worth, I started The Real Global Warming Disaster which is in a similar vein. I'm currently redoing the synopsis on my sandbox page. Zulu Papa 5 pointed out this which I think should be extremely useful in terms of what WP expects in terms of non-fiction books. I wish I had seen it before I wrote the original synopsis, which came in at 1500 words and just got hacked out time and time again by various editors. A frustrating experience, after spending a whole weekend writing it. But it seems to me (and I'm still learning the ropes myself) that if you abide by this then it will pre-empt a lot of criticism. Jprw (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jprw, i think i have followed those guidelines fairly closely, and am redoing the ref`s as cla suggested. Feel free t opop over and edit anything you think i might have wrong :-) mark nutley (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A parting note before I remove your talk page from my watchlist - stop using blogs. Blog reviews of books are not notable. Hipocrite (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice Hipocrite, is a blog review not notable even if the person writing the blog is? mark nutley (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently doesn't regard blogs as reliable sources, even if the blog owner has a Wikipedia BLP. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

But don't we also have to make the distinction between, say, George Monbiot in the Guardian and DeSmogBlog, and Watts up with That and James Delingpole in The Telegraph? Monbiot and Delingpole could be viewed as columns "nicknamed" blogs. Jprw (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I didn't find anything else in Infotrac or NewsStadn that you don't already have. Cla68 (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I took out the blog ref`s and added a bit more t ot he background, i think it is ready now for mainspace and would appreciate you guys giving it the once over before it goes out there, thanks :-) mark nutley (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

How can I view it -- do you have a link (obviously I'm missing something basic). Jprw (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Forget it the penny's dropped. Seen it -- good job. Jprw (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Files in your User Space

Hey there Marknutley, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Marknutley/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that fair use images couldn't be in userspace. I guess you'll have to wait until you post the article to add the book cover image. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually got permisson from the publisher to use the image, i`ll wait till i hear back from the permissions guys mark nutley (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not OK....

I will protest release of unblocking of you in the future. You got a conditional unblock to work in your userspace only for the duration (48 hours). Despite this - i see that not even 24 hours later - you broke this. And has continued to do so later, including several edits in article space[1] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry Kim, the last unblock was under the provision i did not edit articles under the probation, i assumed this unblock was under the same terms. If i have broken this agreement it was not intentional at all. And that diff from article space is an article i had just put into main space, i saw the typo and fixed it straight away, is that so wrong? mark nutley (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You are not supposed to touch article space at all (or any talk-space except your own). Simple as that. And that is not the only edit you've made in article space during the period. This is certainly not a move from your user space. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Fair enough kim, the Cao Yong article would more than likely have been deleted by now if i had not helped out on it. It is a very interesting tale which i came across on recent change patrol, rather than prod it for deletion i figured i could help it survive. It is no-were near the probation area and i actually thought i was doing some good. Do what you think is right, i know i have kept my word which was to not edit any articles in the probation area, and i am sorry if you think what i have done is wrong. mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW it was a move from my user space [2]

That unblock really was intended for the sole and express purpose of letting you work in your userspace, as indicated by my unblocking comment (Unblocked to work in userspace) and notation to your block log, (to work on userspace drafts). I apologize for not noticing and mentioning this when you comment at Alex Harvey's talk page. No real harm done, I suppose, and the block would have expired by now anyway ... but please be more careful. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I saw the Cao Yong edit and I felt it was borderline given the conditions of the unblock, though I didn't say anything because it was unrelated. Since then you've gotten involved a bit in the CC articles, which I agree (with Kim) is inappropriate. In the future, be more careful when extended a courtesy like this. ATren (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

At everyone, i am truly sorry for this misunderstanding. I thought this unblock was the same as the last one, which was not to edit articles in the probation area. And yes i know i did that twice but it was me who actually put that article under the probation :-). Again i am sorry for making this mistake, it was unintentional, i do not want people to think my word is not good. mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

KENNEDY NEWTON

What makes you think that it is vandalism? Theresa Knott | token threats 00:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking what is the cure for a headache and flu, seems like vandalism to me mark nutley (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, asking a question at a desk for asking questions isn't usually considered vandalism. I have reverted you. Theresa Knott | token threats 00:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No worrys, i`m new to RC patrol, i`ll pay closer attention. Sorry about that mark nutley (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification of declined speedy deletion nomination

Hi Marknutley, just dropping by to let you know that I've removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Little Parents, Big Charlie. Please see the rationale given here. Feel free to PROD if you still think the article should be deleted however. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 13:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) :No worrys mate, i used a db-nocontext instead, i have to get used tot all these tags for RC patrol :) mark nutley (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Eclipse Entertainment

This is not, in any shape or form, a no-context CSD. Can you tell what the article is about? Yes. So it has context. Ironholds (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thought that tag was for content. not context. Still getting used to the tags for rc patrol, soty to have wasted you time mark nutley (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair does; ditto with Little Parents, Big Charlie. Note that the content tag is for no content, not just a short article. Ironholds (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Julian Limoti page

Sorry I changed your tag. No hard feelings? *_____^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all,  :) mark nutley (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Copy of my comments at WP:PERM I've added the flag. I'm going to AGF on this as you have been blocked only 6 weeks ago for edit warring. However I don't see why we should hinder those who want to fix up content by denying them tools to do so. I would note that if you use rollback for edit warring it'll be removed and probably not regranted. Pedro :  Chat  07:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, rest assured it will not be used for edit warring, i have learnt my lesson with respect to that :-) mark nutley (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Real Global Warming Disaster as a good article nominee

Hi Mark Nutley,

I have nominated The Real Global Warming Disaster as a good article nominee. As someone who has not contributed to the article (or at least has made a very insignificant contribution), but who would I assume have an interest in this subject, I am writing to ask you if you would be willing to review it. Thanks in advance for your help, and at the same time I'll understand if you're too busy. All the best, Jprw (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark -- thanks for your comments. Could you visit the good article review page and post them there? I'm trying to compile pro/anti comments to get a fair picture. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No worrys mate, but i can`t see it here ? Am i looking in the wrong place? mark nutley (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Good != Featured. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dharmapala of Sri Lanka

Hello Marknutley, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dharmapala of Sri Lanka, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Peer Review

Do you mean WP:Peer review? If so, you should follow the procedures at that page to list it for review. I would also recommend exploring WP:GAN. WP:GAC, WP:WIAFA, the pages linked from those two, and WP:MOS are good for getting an idea of what the article needs to be like to pass FAC. You'll also find some good models at WP:FA under the appropriate category. From a quick look at the article, I'd say you should work on expanding it using reliable secondary sources. You'll also want to improve the pages compliance with the Manual of Style - citations need consistent formatting, article must adhere to WP:NPOV...all those details that can sink a nomination. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, looks like i have some reading to do :) mark nutley (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Pakistanis in Saudi Arabia

Hello Marknutley, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Pakistanis in Saudi Arabia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not about a person (or any of the other things that A7 applies to). You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Theleftorium 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster/GA1

Hi, I'd like to draw your attention to this discussion that I've just initiated. Pyrotec (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to be one of at least three editors, asked to review it (I've found another two so far). Unfortunately, from what you have added to the review so far, I'm not convinced that it is going to be a "fair review". That may seem unfair, and perhaps it is, but you choose to write the words that you put into the review: and that is what my judgement is based on. I have the review on my watch list, as will others: but you still have the chance to do a good review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You have taken on the role of Reviewer, that is what you did when to opened the review (see WP:GAN and Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles). You may not like what William M. Connolley added to the review, but he is entitled to add comments, the same as anyone else. You, as Reviewer, do not need to take notice of what anyone else adds to the review (including me). However, your decision (if you get it wrong) can be challenged (at WP:GAR); and overturned, if uphelp. That is not intended as a threat - you just don't appear to know the process and you seem to have dropped yourself into the "fire". I do suggest that you get help from someone that knows the process - I'm hardly likely to be seen as unbiased. Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed my review until i have read up on how to actually do it properly mark nutley (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I just wanted to say thank you for your level-headed responses and ultimate decision to study up on GAC before taking on your first review. Assessing articles for GA is a very gratifying process, but it does take some time to get used to the criteria, editor/nominator expectations, and all that good stuff. Hopefully you'll want to give it a try sometime in the future. :) If you have any questions, let me know. María (habla conmigo) 22:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I've pre-empted your review and marked the nomination as GA not issued. (You and/or the nominator can object at WP:GAR, but I hope not). I wish you well with your own article and any GAN nominations and/or reviews that you may choose to do in the future. In my oppionion, this is not a review that you (with I think no experience of the process) should have been asked to do - expecially by the Nominator. Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Rebel Magazine

Hi! I declined the G11 for Rebel Magazine, because I don't think the article is exclusively promotional despite the evident conflict of interest. You may want to consider taking it to AfD instead. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Na, let her try and save it. I`ll look it over again in a few days and see how it looks mark nutley (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Faye Fang Keaw

Hello Marknutley. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Faye Fang Keaw, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. The article's claim of four albums and "songs that have topped the Thai charts" is enough - to pass A7 claims don't have to be sourced. I have added a "primarysources" tag. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

PS - looking at the history I see you were not the original tagger. The CSDHelper script I used was not intelligent enough to tell that. I have let him know. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Conor kavanagh CSD/AFD

Hi, just to let you know I've sent Conor kavanagh to AFD if you're interested (discussion here). The creator of the article had removed the CSD tag you'd placed himself, but it wouldn't qualify as A7 anyway; playing for Leeds United is an assertion of importance. Regards, --BelovedFreak 12:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Decline Speedy on Owen Thomas (Playwright)

I have declined speedy deletion by WP:CSD#A7 on Owen Thomas (Playwright). This is because the article does indicate why its subject is important or significant, this is a lower standard than notability and does not need references. I have replaced with WP:BLPPROD thanks for highlighting the article though. Polargeo (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have also declined Hussein Dabbas for similar reasons. Polargeo (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please self-revert on WUWT

This will be the last time i courtesy notice you, you are supposed to keep watch on 1RR yourself. [3] is not an acceptable way around it, in fact it could be considered WP:GAMING. If you've gone off-line during this, then i'm afraid that i am going to use the enforcement board - since you we're aware that you may have broken 1RR. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually i was unsure which is why i posted. This is pathetic, i fix the article, which you should have done instead of slapping tags on it and not i have to revert the fix, how stupid is that? mark nutley (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You're also on civility parole. Do you consider the above civil? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry - but while things may be "stupid" - it is the position into which you've put yourself. Good advice here: If you are in any way uncertain about whether your actions will break your restrictions - then don't do it, and ask someone first. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

@WMC yes it is civil, care to point out how it is not? @ Kim, good advice indeed, cheers mark nutley (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

recent events

First, do not abuse the vandalism charge -- that is reserved for destructive edits with clear intent, and is almost never leveled at long term users.

Second, how is this a BLP vio? I don't think there is any argument that it is, but I'm wondering what your thinking was.

As for the edit by WMC, it was clearly wrong, maybe actionable. I'm raising it now and may file a request. ATren (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling an identifiable living person a right-wing(nut) is a blp violation it is typical of the ha hom attacks made against people skeptical of AGW. What make`s me think it is? the fact that your not meant to insult identifiable living people makes me think it is a blp violation mark nutley (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I missed the edit summary. Sorry. ATren (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfinished business

[4] William M. Connolley (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried. [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What is that diff supposed to show? mark nutley (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The wrong thing. Sorry. Try [6] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok mark nutley (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Miracles (Insane Clown Posse song)

I've placed a hangon tag on the article.--SKATER ^Speak. 22:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know mark nutley (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

CSD

Hey there deletion tagger - I just zapped an inappropriate article you found :) - 2/0 (cont.) 21:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yippee i made a contribution :-) mark nutley (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your message

I do not completely understand your message. I have read the link you suggested, "FAQ/Business", and believe this fulfills all the main points. I have left a response message on the discussion page. Russian Standard Corporation is a very big company, and owns one of the leading consumer brands in Russia and even exports to over 70 countries. I was told that it deserves to be in Wikipedia, and looking at your "FAQ", I believe that this is the case. This is a bit stressful for me. Can we at least proceed slowly? CrystalQuartz (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I see 2/0 has helped you out a bit, if you need some more advice feel free to ask and i`ll try and help mark nutley (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously...

My request that you justify the inclusion of that comment has gone unanswered for five days. Please self-revert until such time as you can at least be bothered to answer the question of what that trivia is doing in the article. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Guettarda, but i have been busy. I had not noticed your question. I have responded on the article talk page mark nutley (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't

Don't engage WMC on talk pages. Cla is working on RC, he will respond to WMC if there are issues. Spend your time tracking down sources. Really, you should re-read the advice Lar gave you a few days ago. No good will come of you getting into it again with WMC. ATren (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, however if it is an article i am working on i will have to talk to him such as the hockey stick article, i shall keep interaction to the minimum however, thanks mark nutley (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to respond to him on the hockey stick book article talk page. It's on my watchlist. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks guys mark nutley (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's good to see you chaps finally coming out into the open and admitting you're a team. Full points for honesty, well done Cla and ATren! William M. Connolley (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Blind reverting to ire an editor....

This revert[7] seems to be only made to ire WMC. The editcomment indicates that you haven't got a clue whether the IP was right or wrong - but that you just reverted, because it was WMC who reverted hir.

The talk-comment here[8] is not acceptable under WP:TPG. You did comment on WMC's talk[9] after that, which is the correct venue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No kim, that is the disputed text which was removed and i am trying to do an RFC on. I reverted it back in after nobody replied on the talk page with just cause for it`s removal. Please get your facts straight before making accusations. I will of course read the TPG so as not to breach protocol again. mark nutley (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, WMC's revert was at 13:02. You posted to the talk page at 14:32, were responded to at 14:35, responded to that at 14:38 and were again responded to at 14:44. You did not respond to the 14:44 statement which said, in part "As you either know or at least should know, opinion pieces and editorials are only reliable for the opinion of the author, not for facts." With this lingering on the talk page, you made the following revert - "putting this back, no just reason for it`s removal has been given on talk". It appears to me that a reason for it's removal was given on talk - perhaps you didn't agree with that reason, but do you really think it's your place to state that people you are in multiple violent disagreements with across many articles are not being "just?" I think you should stop edit warring, personally. Hipocrite (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, my post 14:32, 7 April 2010 my putting back the disputed text 16:13, 14 April 2010 thats seven days mate mark nutley (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well - first of all. Your claims of 1RR violation are dodgy - since this could be categorized as a vandalism revert (not an obvious one - but the IP changed factual information to something wrong)

Secondly - you reverted in something that several editors (in fact all editors - except you) disagreed about. A restart in fact of the small edit-war on the 7th of April.

The discussions are located in Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change#Errors-but-OK as well as Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel on Climate Change#Removal_of_Section. You had no inkling of a rationale to break the consensus at that point. That you started an RfC .... Is good. But that would be for proposed new content, and you fail to provide a neutral description of what the conflict is about[10] (you still haven't provided one that adequately describes mine and WMC's objections). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the 1r claim is not about the article, it is what was done on the talk page. I put the text back in based on this [11] in which no policy reasons were given got the texts removal. Your objections were dealt with, i pointed to several links which showed the SPM had errors in it, i then asked you for a yes or no answer if there were errors in the report, your answer was There might be? Who knows. But they haven't been found then (or i haven't read about it in any reference yet) Even though i had shown links stateing there were errors in said report. BTW the revert i did was not the ip one WMC had reverted, it was your reverting of mine [12] Hope this is a bit clearer for you now mark nutley (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No Mark - my objections haven't been answered. In fact i've commented on each of your links previously - in fact i've even pointed out that the SPM says what you claim that it doesn't.... The references simply do not show what you think they do. Since i hope that you aren't misrepresenting deliberately - i must assume that it is simply because of lack of knowledge. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, how about this then the Summary of Chapter 6 on The Social Costs of Climate Change bears little resemblance to the technical chapter it is supposed to summarise. Indeed, the lead authors of that chapter disowned the Summary. and still you say, no errors? mark nutley (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, that is not about the AR4. How about at the very least look at the bloody date? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And this one the IPCC said at the weekend it would re-examine a passage about the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events such as hurricanes in its 2007 IPCC report which they have not actually done mark nutley (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not an error in the SPM, its from a chapter in the WGII report. Don't you know the difference? In fact (as i pointed out previous<beep>ly - it contains a note specifically saying that it is not in the SPM:

....However, the inaccurate passage was 'not included in the Summary for Policymakers section of the report...

Are you at all reading this? Do you make any attempt at all at understanding the references that you give? Sorry, but i am rather fed up! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim i think you misunderstand the ref, the part not included in the SPM was the glacier mistake, extreme weather events were in the SPM. Sorry i had not made myself clearer mark nutley (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK Mark. So where exactly in this quote (the only thing about extreme weather in the text) do you think that it says that there is an error - and even more - where do you see that this error is in the SPM?

As well as the glacier mistake, the IPCC said at the weekend it would re-examine a passage about the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events such as hurricanes in its 2007 IPCC report

Now i happen to remember that particular debacle - it is about a graph by Muir-Woods - and it doesn't appear in the SPM (of WGII (or for that matter any other)) - but in the supplemental material to the WGII). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

They had to re-examine it because it was an error, why would you re-examine something which was correct? And extreme weather events are discussed in the SPM, i`ll go double check if you want but the mistake is there in front of you mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

First: Not in the SPM (as you claim). Second: Claim of Error != Existence of Error. Third: assuming(Error(Specific graph)) !=> "all statements on severe weather" == wrong. Can you grok that? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"How about at the very least look at the bloody date?" Small English tip. Anyone but a Brit found using the term "bloody" incurs opprobrium and even ridicule. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 19:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought Kim was Danish? I know most of us Brits are descended from the Danes raping and pillaging Celts in the danegeld days but that makes us (part) Danish not them British... --BozMo talk 19:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I fear the Danaans even when they bear gifts.? Virgil was must have had a little Nostradamus in him. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 20:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Where do the Greeks come into this? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Those where the days :) Well - the Brits did pay us back later..... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, since most of my non-specialized literature is in British English i wouldn't be surprised, if i'm using anglo-britton-specific-expletives. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hah, we showed those buggers at clontarf who was the boss :) long live Brian Boru mark nutley (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Quarles Edit

Mark, Trying to add a breaking news story to the Quarles page. Help me cite it, will you? http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2010/10/04/georgetown-candidate-for-state-house-arrested-for-reckless-driving/ http://pageonekentucky.com/2010/10/04/ryan-quarles-arrested-hands-it-to-hoffman/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.58.60 (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, we do not add breaking news to a BLP, please post on the article talk page. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Old user page

Hi Mark,

assuming you have changed your mind and want to come back under this name, I (or any admin, really), can restore your old user page. Just give me a wink. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? Bugger i had not thought of that, can you restore it for me please stephan? just overwrite the new on i added, thanks mate. I had to come back under this name btw, nobody seemed willing to allow me a fresh start :( mark nutley (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I did what I thought needed doing, the log entry is correct, but the old revisions are not there. I'll try to find someone who know what they are doing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm again. Now it showed up fine. Maybe it needed a second to percolate through the data base. Have fun with your new old page (all the history is back, including your new version). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, very good of you mark nutley (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oi

Mark, please take that issue and those users off your watchlist. The wiki is bigger than that, you can be part of the future, that is the past, leave it to the past, you know I have worthwhile work for you and you can be a quality contributor .. come fly free. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, were`s the work at? mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a area in need of contributors and you will learn a lot about the legal issues surrounding in the process, Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup - User:Moonriddengirl is available for discussion and advice. I would also like to get a little more involved in the issues, it is an area wikipedia needs more activity in. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I do know Moonriddengirl :) she commented here when i was blocked for copyviolations. Well at least i have experience with it :). I shall take a wander over there tomorrow once i drop the boy off at school, thanks mate mark nutley (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool Mark, Moon is always over worked and does a great job for the project, she is busy and burn out is an issue, if we ask her for a project she will have multiple options. - Ow, and welcome back. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I see you have had a little start and introduced yourself to Moon, take your time with the copy vio issue and it is a very useful thing to learn, read the guidelines and then read them again, if you are in doubt ask me or moon, start with only the simple clear cases and if someone objects, then step back, revert and ask me or moon. There is a note on my talkpage, a good faith doubt as to if it is a good idea for you to work in this area after some previous copy vio issues, it is for this that I would like you to really read and understand the guidelines moon linked you to, and also as I said, start on the clear, simple cases and get those right first. Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Mass killing...

I am sorry you have missed it, but I have done so many times over and over. Some issues have been addressed but most haven't. The most glaring sign of POV issues was the active and ongoing debate on the talk page. Just read the archives for more details. (Igny (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

It does not matter, the restrictions on the article say you must discuss any reverts you make, so will you? mark nutley (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, see here. (Igny (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

Hello, DarknessShines2. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Origins of Common-interest development

Hi,

I created the article common-interest development as a split from Reserves for Common-Interest Developments. You can check talk:Reserves for Common-Interest Developments for some background on why, but essentially, all the text I split out was not about the reserves but rather about CIDs which oddly enough did not have an article on Wikipedia. The new article is not very good and needs a rewrite but the topic itself is notable and there are some references included that would an interested editor cold use to develop the article. Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup

Hi! First off I'd like to say thanks for helping out with copyright cleanup, as Moonriddengirl said there's always plenty of work to be done in this area. Since I'm the editor that usually goes through WP:SCV, you will likely see me adding some additional notes in addition to the ones you're leaving for the articles you're reviewing. Hopefully I won't make it feel too much like I'm looking over your shoulder, I just like to able to scan the day at a glance and see what still needs to be done or how things were resolved. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Look over my shoulder all you want. I would rather you catch me making a mistake rather than a mistake going unnoticed. I hope to god i have not messed anything up today though as i just said on another talk page that i figured i had done ok :) mark nutley (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, in looking over your work for the 4th, the only issue I noticed was with Dan Benjamin. You marked it as cleaned, but a good chunk of it was very close to the source except for the added references. Everything else looks just fine as far as copyright concerns go. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that`s what i get for being cocky i suppose :) Shall look far closer next time round, sorry about that mark nutley (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it takes some effort to pick out close paraphrases even when you're looking for them. I know I had lots of trouble picking out bits and pieces of problematic material mixed in with clean when I started doing this. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So I ran across what I believe is another issue :/ You cleared this version of an article, compared to this source. Could you compare the last sentence of the article (in the version I linked to) to the last sentence of the source and work your way backwards through them both and see how close they are when you look at it phrase-by-phrase? VernoWhitney (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wiki etiquette

See here. Please note that it is not a retaliation to your recent actions, but your disruptive behavior has to stop. (Igny (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

Austin Volk

Many thanks for fixing the Austin Volk article. It gets frustrating wwith the bots. I have a love/hate relationship with the bots. Thanks again-RFD (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No problems mate, glad to have helped. Hope to see you expand a bit on the article, that guy looked like he had an interesting life mark nutley (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about Volk wearing his navy uniform one day during the riots hoping to bring about stability and negiotations. Do you think this article could be DYK material with this as a hook? Many thanks-RFD (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what DYK is :) but i think this can be a damn good article yes mark nutley (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Please also see

Here AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see too

Here

(BTW, I'm never sure about using first names vs surnames - the rules of etiquette seem to have changed regarding this - I meant no offence) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

None taken mate, son`t sweat it mark nutley (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

HELP

If any of my TP stalkers see this can you please watch Chakri Toleti for a bit. A new editor is having trouble navigating and figuring things out so i`ve been trying to help him along. I am hoping with my last edit summary he will figure out how to get to the talk page. I have to go out and won`t be back for hours though and i sense he is getting impatient so if he does manage to post on the talk page i`d appreciate someone taking a moment to help him, thanks mark nutley (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done, I'm watching :) Acather96 (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks man, If you see him mess up just try to help him along, he seems a little confused on how things work here, thanks again mark nutley (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hiiii

http://movies.rediff.com/slide-show/2009/sep/16/slide-show-1-south-interview-with-director-chakri-toleti.htm

This link indicates that Chakri toleti has acted in few movies as a child artist

Chakri toleti did not had in person interview with any daily news paper so what kind of citations you want??? the above link in english is not a citation????you want a citation in spanish or german or italian???

This system is ridiculous if an administrator dont like something then you guys mark it as Vandalism???? so if any one looks for Chakri toletis personal info they look for wikipedia right???

But you guys abuse the contributors like me like this when we add genuine info with genuine intension???

now with above reference(in the above html link) can i add chakri toletis personal info and career as actor???

If i cannot add and if some other person adds it you will allow??? if an administrator adds it u will allow??? is this not vandalism and abuse by administrators???

(Rocktruly18 (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)).

Continued:

I just added career information to the article. I have rewritten the career article and have added new sources and citations in external links. Please dicuss with me before you make any decision. (Rocktruly18 (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)).

Communist stuff

When you gather sources for these articles could you bear in mind that other editors may object to the use of non-academic sources, such as a book by Brian Crozier published by Transaction Publishers. Theories published outside the academic mainstream are fringe and there is no need to use these sources when there is extensive writing in academic sources. TFD (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I`m not really fussed if you object to the use of non academic sources, as the sources are finewithin policy. mark nutley (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you not limit your research to academic sources? It would avoid a lot of disputes in writing articles. TFD (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to limit our sources based on your likes and dislikes, i will follow policy as you ought, there would be less disputes if you did not declare reliable sources neo conservative and fringe when they do not happen to agree with your POV, we are meant to remain neutral and dispassionate, i know this is not always easy but we can`t discard a source just because you don`t like the publisher mark nutley (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never opposed using any peer-reviewed article or any book published by a university or academic publishing company, regardless of the political position of the writer. My only objection has been to the use of polemical works that have undergone no fact-checking and are ignored by the mainstream. Note that you would have trouble establishing the notablity of fringe views. But academic writing contains a wide range of views, and there is no reason why we should ignore it for fringe sources. TFD (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is your problem, just because a book was not printed by an academic publisher does not make it fringe or not reliable and you need to stop pushing that. I follow and will continue to follow wp:rs as should you. For instance Transaction Publishers been around since 1962 and specializes in social sciences books and journals Brian Crozier is a historian and is a Distinguished Visiting Fellow on War, Revolution, and Peace of Stanford University's Hoover Institution and you actually think this would not be a good source? mark nutley (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Ramrods (punk band)

Hi. Thanks for notifying me of the deletion proposal. However, I had absolutely nothing to do with that article - except in moving it from where it was previously, at The Ramrods, to where it is now, at The Ramrods (punk band). I did that in order to create The Ramrods (instrumental group) and turn The Ramrods into a disamb page - but, in the process, I left behind the history of the article on the punk band here. I don't know how to rectify my mistake, but you may want to notify the creator of the original article, User:Zoinksjeepster (who seems not to have made any edits in the last year). Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok i`m trying to sort it but am unable to open most wiki pages for some reason, everything is taking forever :o( mark nutley (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I was having the same problem. Sorry for causing a mess! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Oh, yeah, the bot doesn't work anymore, does it? And, whether you believe me or not, like I said on the article talk page, I wish you the best of luck finding really positive reviews of The Jesus Dynasty. The author of the book which I quoted extensively describes TJD several times as "well-written", and some of the comments from Reichs could be seen as positive, but, like I said, I didn't omit anything of any substance that I was able to find, other than wire-service duplications and really minor mentions. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe you, i see not reason not to :o) but really, get another bot :o) mark nutley (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, you know I'm really not that interested in the TJD article, right? It is the fact that it is being used as one of the primary sources of Ebionites which caused all this to happen in the first place. But, given how much material I have on the book, I guess it can't hurt to work on the article itself. John Carter (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if your not that interested then no worries, i had assumed you were sorry if you feel i backed you into working on it mark (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean that. But, like I said, considering I already have virtually everything I can find about the book, I may as well make it as good as possible. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Michael has asserted that all comments from Witherington's book are unacceptable for inclusion in the article The Jesus Dynasty on that article's talk page, and citing your earlier comments on the subject on the TJD talk page, after refusing to address the reliability of the source on the Talk:Ebionites page and insisting that the discussion take place at the TJD talk page. Please comment with your own opinions. Thank you. For what it might be worth, I believe that at least to me there is clear evidence that Ovadyah is, basically, an SPA who seems tied to a barely notable Sacred Name movement group which claims to be Ebionite, and that Michael has been made subject to edit restrictions for a year regarding this topic in a previous arbitration. John Carter (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops!

Sorry about the typo with your name, mark. :( I could claim it was just my erratic one-finger typing, but I wonder if it was a subconscious slip? Actually, I quite liked Muttley, with his sniggering as Dick Dastardly's plans went wrong - "Curses, foiled again!".

Anyway, I'll correct it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nark Muttley? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No he got my first name right :o) Andy i was not offended i thought it was funny, reminded me of primary school, 6 year old`s have not got the best imagination when it comes to nicknames :o) mark (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Surfacestations for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Surfacestations, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surfacestations until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Austin Volk

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are being discussed at arbitration and may reply [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#mark_nutley]. TFD (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

1 RR

You have broken the 1RR restriction on Mass killings under Communist regimes. ([13], [14]) Would you like to revert yourself? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I`m sorry? Your asking me to revert in a BLP violation? Well, NO. if you wish to complain that i will not revert in your BLP violation look to the section above and join the cool kids at the party mark (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. T. Canens (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• A specially-tailored version of discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
• Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
• Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them.
• The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);

• William M. Connolley
• Polargeo
• Thegoodlocust
• Marknutley
• ChrisO
• Minor4th
• ATren
• Hipocrite
• Cla68
• GregJackP
• A Quest For Knowledge
• Verbal
• ZuluPapa5
• JohnWBarber
• FellGleaming

• The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
  • Scjessey [15]
  • KimDabelsteinPetersen [16]
• The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
  • Stephan Schulz
  • Lar

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Doug, a question though, i began my block on CC articles quite some time ago, does this count as time served or does it start from today? mark (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Too tired to think straight, best ask on the arbcom noticeboard talk page so everyone can see the answer. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for responding at the talk page of The Jesus Dynasty. It would be my hope that, perhaps, you can continue to watch it. I don't think I currently have the exact links to the databank articles on me, but will be getting them over the weekend. I hope that they are not removed once added. There may also, at some point, be a challenge to them. If that is the case, I expect I shall have to find a neutral outsider to be sent them from the hosting servers to be able to verify the material I add is from them. But, thanks again. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Appeal

The only way to appeal this is via e-mail? Well that sucks, the block would have expired before it got sorted. So much for blocks being preventative not punitive, the usual pile of bollocks, typical. mark (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

hang in there man, [several] others agree may agree the block was an error. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There are very few acceptable excuses for violating a bright-line edit restriction. To do so more than once is a bit worse... BigK HeX (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I only did it the once, the third was a blp violation. A mistake over a few hours leads to a one week block? that is punitive mark (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't follow very closely, but I don't recall you referring to your actions as a mistake or accident ... I could well have missed it though. My quick skim of the issue gave me the impression that you stood by your actions pretty stridently. Dunno... BigK HeX (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)