User talk:DarknessShines2/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Removal of copyvio

I have removed the synopsis section from Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History as it was identical to the Product description at Amazon.com ... possibly from the bookjacket blurb(?). Please don't copy/paste text from other sources w/out attribution. Please read WP:COPYVIO. Vsmith (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn sorry, i forgot to rewrite it, shall redo it today mark nutley (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you cannot just rewrite a copyrighted product description like that, as doing so would make it a derivative work. You have to rewrite the synopsis section from scratch. NW (Talk) 11:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That`s what i meant when i said rewrite, i`ll be redoing it from scratch. I had copied the now removed text into the article to use as a guide only. mark nutley (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing restriction per WP:GS/CC/RE

"Marknutley is prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions such as articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media, to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing. He is also prohibited from reverting the removal of sources that he added to an article without first gathering talk page consensus. Marknutley is encouraged to find a mentor who can assist in checking the reliability of sources and with more properly educating him on the reliable sources policy." NW (Talk) 20:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Cla68 has agreed to be such a mentor, if you wish. NW (Talk) 20:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I did not formally restrict you from doing so, I would highly advise you to clear this sort of thing with Cla68 first. NW (Talk) 11:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That was done before any restriction from you, and if i see unreliable blog sources in an article i`ll remove them, given my current restriction was brought on by my single use of a blog in a blp you are now telling me not to remove blog sources from blp`s? Erm, no. Also why not have a pop at the experienced editors who actually reverted that blog (which is an attack piece btw) back into the article? So go and have words with WMC and John Quiggin. Hey, maybe they should also have to ask if a source is reliable? and then when they do add content which is reliably sourced and it gets removed they of course can`t put it back, instead they can waste time arguing on talk pages mark nutley (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that this applies certainly to the JBS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of copyvio

I have removed the synopsis section from Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History as it was identical to the Product description at Amazon.com ... possibly from the bookjacket blurb(?). Please don't copy/paste text from other sources w/out attribution. Please read WP:COPYVIO. Vsmith (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn sorry, i forgot to rewrite it, shall redo it today mark nutley (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you cannot just rewrite a copyrighted product description like that, as doing so would make it a derivative work. You have to rewrite the synopsis section from scratch. NW (Talk) 11:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That`s what i meant when i said rewrite, i`ll be redoing it from scratch. I had copied the now removed text into the article to use as a guide only. mark nutley (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing restriction question

Your sourcing restriction states "Marknutley is prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions such as articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media, to ... any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing." Which contributor in good standing did you run this piece on a tv-stations website through? Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You think Fox News is not part of the MSM? mark nutley (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly not a newspaper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What he said. Obviously, you misunderstood the restriction, so I'll let it go as I didn't think the edit was terrible. Just a heads up that you were likley in technical violation. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I`ll ask NW to clarify on this, surely news organizations are ok to use mark nutley (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this was a technical violation of a strict reading of the restrictions, but it wasn't one that I intended when writing the restriction. Media like Fox News is acceptable for you to cite. NW (Talk) 19:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank god for that, the BBC might get a bit pissed if i had to run off and ask for permission to use them as a source :-) mark nutley (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Jaworowski

I've started by taking the question to WP:RS/N [1] - depending on results there, i will then check at WP:BLP/N.

If you feel that i haven't explained the situation fairly and neutral, then please briefly state the specifics of your disagreement there, so that we can get the input from uninvolved editors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate Audit

Mark, it's not a big deal if the article is a redirect right now. If you'd like, please copy it over into your sandbox and I'll help get it up to speed and then we can repost it as a viable article. I think it will take a few weeks, but it's more important that the article is solid than rushed. Cla68 (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok will do mark nutley (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Climate Audit deserves a separate article and if it's ok with you chaps, I'd like to volunteer to assist in bringing the article up to scratch. Thepm (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I started a rewrite [2] Jump in any time :), does anyone know why i can`t link to www.wikio.com? Why is it blacklisted? mark nutley (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Back and forth in endorsements at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar

To Collect, Hipocrite, and Marknutley: I thought back and forth in endorsements was discouraged. You may want to move your comments to the talk. I could be wrong though. Since I left this note at several pages you may want to discuss it at my talk, dunno. Your call. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It is, it is why i did not reply to hipocrite in that section again after i had clarified my position mark nutley (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Probation

Can you please show where you cleared this with your mentor? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My probation does not prevent me from editing articles, so long as i use reliable sources like Channel 4. What exactly is the problem with the source? mark nutley (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Figured you'd want to stay within the letter of the probation ("Channel 4 News" isn't a newspaper). This edit though is clearly and example of "reverting the removal of sources that he added to an article without first gathering talk page consensus". Isn't it? Guettarda (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

NW clarified above that all MSM outlets were ok to use.I forgot abut not reverting stuff in, i looked all over the article for the muir stuff but that seems the only place to put it as it is the only place muir is mentioned. Were do you think his resignation should be put? mark nutley (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, cool with the former. Try and be careful with the reverts. As for the Russell stuff - since the article doesn't go into any details about the commission, I don't think this one detail should be in the article. Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any articles about the actual enquiry`s? Perhaps one to cover them all would be good, what do you think? mark nutley (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

RFCs

I though I had demonstrated to you how to write an RFC when we did it together. Instead of writing a neutral RFC that provided a vehicle for both sides to present their arguments, or writing an RFC that was written for the enemy, explaining only the side you don't agree with, you've yet again written an RFC that mischaracterizes the opinions of people who disagree with you, at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Request_for_comment. Why is it that you won't change your bad behaviors, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC) What are you on about? How is Should the resignation of Philip Campbell from the muir review and what lead to his resignation be covered it this article? mischaracterize what other editors have said or think? That is as neutral as it can get for gods sake, it`s a question and the proposed text how else can it be written? mark nutley (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If I show you how to do it, will you run any and all future RFCS through me before taking them live? I'm not interested in wasting my time teaching you how to do something if you're just going to ignore me. Hipocrite (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok let`s do that mark nutley (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's how you do it.

First, you put the following in the text

{{tl|rfctag|CATEGORYHERE}}

Then, following that, you describe the dispute in a way that people who typically disagree with you would describe it. In this case:

It has been claimed that this edit is misplaced and is "minor puff." Should infomration about Philip Cambell's resignation from the review be included in the article, and if so, how and where should it be included?

Then you write subheaders

Arguments for inclusion

• In here you can make whatever points you want to.
• This is where you can describe the dispute the way you think it should be described.

Arguments against inclusion

And here, you write "Could Guatadera or WMC please write a brief summary of their points and remove the "tl" tag from the RFC header if they think this RFC is fair?

Then you put the statemens by invovled and uninvolved parties.

See, then both sides think the RFC is fair, as opposed to your current use of RFCs, which appears to be anything but an attempt to gauge what the community thinks, but rather an attempt to get the community to agree with you. Hipocrite (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks a lot, i will do it like this from now on. Should i modify the current one running do you think? mark nutley (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Forthcoming user conduct RfC

For your attention: Talk:Bishop Hill (blog)#Time to deal with the root problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Carbon Dreams

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Carbon Dreams. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbon Dreams. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio again

I've just removed a direct copy from Barnes and Noble from Carbon Dreams. Vsmith (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked for a week for repeated copyright violations. Your careless editing must stop. Vsmith (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, Mark, you can't just go and copy an entire synopsis verbatim from an online bookseller. You should know that. ATren (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Is a week the appropriate length here? If the last block was two days, shouldn't the next one be four days? If the standard is a week, I'm ok with that as long as it is applied consistently across the 'pedia. Cla68 (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the second copyvio I've removed from this users edits (see above). And this is the second article written by this editor that I've looked at in the last two days. How many more such problems are there? His reaction above was "Damn sorry, I forgot...", and he didn't think about "remembering" this one? This is simply careless editing. I'm willing to listen to other admin concerns re: block length. Vsmith (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad form but fair use and an over zealot block length. The ed should be freeed to correct themselves and restore wiki in goodness. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a mathematical progression of block lengths; this isn't a punishment, it's a way to protect the project from a particularly insidious sort of harm. On Wikipedia (and in my experience as an administrator) there are three areas which tend to attract prompt – and generally unanimous – enforcement action: issuing legal threats, engaging in copyright infringement, and getting sloppy with BLPs. Copyright violations damage the reputation of the project as a whole, and they waste the effort of any editors who may (in good faith, making the assumption that prior contributions are legitimate) base their work on infringing material.

If there are any other 'articles' that Marknutley has created which contain (or consist primarily of) copy & paste material, he needs to be open about that now, before further damage is done. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The argument that blocks are only preventative is disingenuous, and I don't mean that as an attack on what you said, but as a reflection on one of the dichotomies in Wikipedia's administrative processes. Blocks are also used to correct the behavior of editors who have violated a policy or guideline as well as immediately protect the 'pedia. This means, in effect, that blocks are also punitive. I have no problem with that, but we should openly admit that this is the reality. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Further copyvios removed from Susan M. Gaines [3] and Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History [4] Vsmith (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed a copyio from Tao: On the Road and on the Run in Outlaw China [5]. It is from Goodreads here. Cardamon (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Vssmith, after you warned me the last time i fully intended to go through the artilcle`s i have made to ensure they were up to scratch, i request i be unblocked so i can actually do that please mark nutley (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Scratch the above, a week off will probably do me good mark nutley (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea Mark. It's inconceivable to me how you would have such a blatant copyvio in an article you promoted to namespace. If it was an accident, then the only explanation that makes sense is you copied it with the intent of either direct-quoting it or paraphrasing, and then later forgot to do so, but even that indicates that you are still trying too hard and moving too fast. You have to slow down and stop being so impatient. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, and neither is climate science, so why are you in such a rush? Maybe a week will get you to relax and take it more slowly when you come back. ATren (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Come on, MN - you should know better than to do this. Never, ever, ever copy and past material into an article, even if it's "just" in your user-space or off-line. It's quick and easy, and basically lazy, and it will (and has) come to bite you. Going back to clean it up is a nice offer, but it never should have been there. You've now caused folks to view your edit with even more distrust, and will probably cause nearly everything you've done, and will do for a while, to be scrutinized by more people. You've got the motivation and time to be a prolific editor, but copyright violations are the third rail on WP. Touch it and bad things happen. Ravensfire (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I know guys, i was just lazy and not paying attention. Big mistake not to be repeated. I`ll work on stuff offline from now on then copy and paste that as an article, be safer than doing this again. Sorry for the trouble caused mark nutley (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Just remember, even there, to never paste stuff into your article file directly from the source! Ravensfire (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

One more [6]. Guettarda (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Two more [7] [8] Guettarda (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Instead of Guetterda's ad hoc screening, is this a problem which will require a formal copyright investigation to clean up? There does appear to be a pattern of plagiarism and infringement, and a systematic examination of contributions may – unfortunately – be the only way that we're going to get all of them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

O bollocks, those are in my user space and are drafts. There is nothing wrong with having stuff like that in your userspace as a guide and you know it, now stay off my userpages and stop looking for trouble were none exists mark nutley (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark, that's not true at all. All text put on this website is subject to our policies - when you edit your user space, right below "Save page" there's text that says "All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." Hipocrite (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

But when the gore effect was put up for afd someone mentioned the stuff i had copy and pasted, to use as a guide and another editor said that was ok as it was not in main space? Plus i already said above i`ll do stuff like this offline from now on, but i can`t do anything about it at the moment as i am blocked for a week mark nutley (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The "other editor" was wrong. Everything in Wikipedia is visible to the world, and hence "published". You cannot publish things under copyright without the consent of the copyright holder. Please don't take this as an attempt to rub it in, but as an explanation of a critical concept on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As an aside (and Stephan is right about the law) stuff in your user space is also quite likely to be spotted by copyright owners because it is indexed by robots. Your user talk subspace like User_talk:Marknutley/Sandbox is noindexed and therefore (whilst still illegal) is much less likely to trigger automated plagarism systems like copyscape. --BozMo talk 20:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

CCI

Hi. I understand that you are currently blocked, but wanted to advise you that a contributor copyright investigation has been opened to see if there are additional issues. Because it seems that you may be editing under your real name, I have opened it under today's date. You can see it at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100506. Because you have already been notified of Wikipedia's copyright policies, you will not be given notice if new issues are discovered by the volunteers who contribute to that CCI. Instead, the resolution of each article will be noted directly on that page. If a problem is detected, the listing will be marked with a check mark and, usually, a note left explaining what action was taken. If no problem is detected, the listing will instead receive an "x". Because your mainspace contributions are relatively few, this investigation may go somewhat quickly. However, there is a backlog, so there may be some lag before volunteers begin to evaluate these contributions. You may wish to add it to your watchlist in case it is dormant for some time if you wish to keep an eye on its progress.

When the listing is completed, it will be courtesy blanked and archived. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Please

forget it. As ThePM says it`ll all still be here when i get back mark nutley (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Good thinking - your unblock request (that I was about to decline) did not address the reason for your block: a massive history of continual copyright violations, even after warned to stop. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't

MN - seriously mate, go to the movies, go out for dinner, watch tv, spend some time at the library, go fishing, go train-spotting, go surfing, build a scale model of the QEII out of matchsticks. Just don't hang around here. Nothing here will be irretrievable after a week and you'll look so much the better for having copped it sweet. Thepm (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but i don`t want my articles deleted :( mark nutley (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that any articles here belong to you William M. Connolley (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

By which I suspect that William means to point out WP:OWN. Articles belong to the community. If any articles are deleted for notability concerns (rather than copyright) while you are blocked, you can request their contents later for further development to address those concerns. See Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles and its header for more information. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

MN, they're right, you don't own those articles. It's a common issue with new editors, getting offended when others remove their content, but it's just the way it works here. All content is subject to editing/removal by the consensus of others. The good thing is, it's a Wiki, so you can always get it back, and even if consensus doesn't support including it here, you can always post it somewhere offsite (i.e. a blog). ATren (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don`t mind stuff being edited, i just don`t want the articles deleted as i know i can add info which shows notability, no worries. Only a few days left (I hope) and i can begin to fix my mistakes mark nutley (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Although i would have to say the removing of well sourced material does piss me off a little [9] there is no need or that, none at all mark nutley (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It was not removed for poor sourcing - read the edit summary. BLP's are not a full list of ever thing a person has done, only the major/notable acts. You need to demonstrate WHY a particular article or paper is notable and should be included. Ravensfire (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is not your book being being mentioned in nature not notable? [10] I`d have thought it was. And her short storys were nomintated for the Pushcart Prize surely thats notable? mark nutley (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the stuff I removed in the edit that you are complaining about above[11] has nothing to do with that. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ

• Sex, love and science Nature ref you removed
• Small Pleasures
• Bags Two of her short storys you removed mark nutley (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Books generally should be listed. As to the rest, THAT'S THE TYPE OF INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED TO INCLUDE IN THE ARTICLE!!!!!! Yes, I'm shouting. Loudly. That's something that might merit a section. Read through the WP:NOT that was linked above - if an article is truly notable, then you can probably work it into a section, not just put down a list everything they've done. Think of it this way, when you read an encyclopedia article about someone, you want to know a bit about who they are, what have they done and why those actions are important. Give me a link, and meh, that's relatively useless. Why should I click it? Tell me why the link is important, and it's more likely to be included. We're not here to do your research for you - we assume it's been done and that you'll share all relevant information. Think about that ... Ravensfire (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark, that's just not true. I removed links to articles she had co/authored--,i.e. primary sources. A reference to her "book being being mentioned in nature" would be secondary source, and I removed nothing of the sort. Nor did I remove any about her being nominated for a Pushcart. Stop saying I did things that I didn't do. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes you did Yillowslime, here is the diff of your removal of content [12] One of those is a ref to nature mate, don`y worry like raven said i just need to explain everything a tad more once i am unblocked, see you all in six days mark nutley (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't put any context behind it, it's probably going to get yanked. Especially on a BLP. Sorry, MN, I can't fault Yillowslime at all on this. Ravensfire (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I removed a link to a Nature article by her. I did not remove anything about her "book being being mentioned in nature". Yilloslime ^T_C 21:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Susan M. Gaines

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Susan M. Gaines. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan M. Gaines. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Star Trek: The Next Generation: Birth of the Federation do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please don't add information without a reliable secondary source (WP:V, WP:RS), and do not put external links into the body text.  Chzz  ►  16:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The link is reliably sourced, please look at the article thank you mark nutley (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You have new messages

Hello, DarknessShines2. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  16:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Space Exploration History on U.S. Stamps

Greetings Mark

I am amazed that you found the New Page...only five minutes after it was first launched! Do you have some sort of 'radar' that alerts you to new articles? Amazing. I am also working on a quite larger page in my user space: American History on US Postage Stamps. If you have the time check in and leave any thoughts on the discussion page there. Thanks for the encouraging words. All the best. GWillHickers (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mortarism

Hello Marknutley. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mortarism, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Statemaster is a mirror site - what you found there is their copy of an earlier version here; so it's not a copyvio. However it is a G$ - repost of material deleted at AfD - and I will zap it as such. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok man, wish you had posted like two minutes ago as an ip removed the tag and i reverted him :) mark nutley (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Tagging Articles for Creation submissions for deletion

Hi DarknessShines2, according to the edit history you tagged an article , Chemist's Ring, for deletion. This article was also tagged with:

{{AFC submission|||ts=dated and time|u=Username|ns=0}}

Articles tagged with this tag are Article for Creation submissions. If the article is in mainspace it should be moved to

Draft:Articlename and the redirect should be tagged for deletion. The article tagged for deletion has been moved to the Article for Creation space and the deletion tag has been removed. Misplaced submissions are automatically tagged with a misplaced Articles for Creation template. This template will appear at the top of the page. Before deleting articles please check for this template. Thank you.

--Alpha Quadrant (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Charles R. Chickering

Hi Mark, thank you for your help. I am trying to find biographical information on Chickering. Every time I have searched I encounter numerous examples of his work, esp at the Smithsonian Postal Museum, but alas I have yet to find anything that covers the man and his career at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Even the B.E.P. has little to no info' (that I have found) at their website. If you should encounter such info in your travels please inform me. Again, many thanks. GWillHickers (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your restrictions, and a possible breach of these....

Per these restrictions - Have you checked this with an independent editor in good standing? Neither Orlowski's blog in The Register nor Pielke Jr.'s blog are mainstream media. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The register is a main stream newspaper is`nt it? And Pileke is reliable per wp:prof so i figured that would be ok to use, is there actually a problem with either ref? mark nutley (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, The Register is not a "main stream newspaper" - its not even a newspaper. And you are specifically barred from taking a stand on whether something is a reliable source or not (within the sanction area) - please read your sanctions again and try to understand them. I suggest that you revert yourself - since you are in breach of your restrictions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

MN, I advise you to back down on this rapidly if you don't want an enforcement request William M. Connolley (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have filed an enforcement request, as I was unaware that you were yet again using blogs as sources. You can find it at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#marknutley. Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow thanks hipocrite you gave me all of half an hour, nice one mark nutley (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You should have done it immediately when i pointed out that you were in breach of your restrictions, restrictions are not there for fun (as you should know, since this isn't the first time that you've been in breach of a sanction placed). It is your responsibility to adhere to the restrictions put upon you. Personally i'd have notified NuclearWarfare who placed the restrictions, and asked for you to be blocked for a short period of time - since this isn't the first time that you have failed to adhere to restrictions placed upon you, in the hope that you may finally understand that such restrictions aren't there for the "fun of it". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is fuck all wrong with those refs and sources and you know it, all were atributed correctly, your only problem is that you want the article deleted and are looking for any excuse to remove content mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark, please calm your language down. I am not the one who is in breach of a sanction, you are. Rules are not here for "fun", and to be broken when ever you feel it is "Ok". Your comment here is indicative of you not understanding that. There is the "fuck all" wrong with the sources, that you aren't allowed to introduce them into an article. - as simple as that. (ie. it doesn't matter one single iota whether they are attributed, reliable or not - you can't introduce them, per your restrictions). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Don`t tell me to calm down, i have followed the rules as laid down, you know those sources are fine and i have done nothing wrong, do me a favour and just go away i`m fed up of this constant shite mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you haven't "followed the rules as laid out". The rules for you are: "Marknutley is prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions such as articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media, to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing." - and both of the sources you introduced failed that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice: this [13] is the wrong response (as is the above). If you want people to think that you understand the difference between various sources, you need to show it. Trying to brazen this out is doomed William M. Connolley (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to brazen it out, i am being honest. Why not tell me what is wrong with the ref`s? exactly were in your opinon are they wrong? mark nutley (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I can, but you have already been told. You need a bit of introspection at this point. The purpose of your sanction was to prevent you introducing dodgy refs. You are now in some danger of demonstrating that you can't tell dogy from non-dodgy, hence H's proposed extension. What I write as a comment at the RFE (whether you care or not is another matter of course) depends on whether you manage to work this out for yourself, or not. At the very least I strongly suggest you strike your existing statement as a holding measure, and go talk to Cla, or LHVU, or someone you trust William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark, this is the wrong question to ask. It is not whether the sources are reliable or not that is the question - it is whether you broke your editing restrictions. And that is what you should focus on. A good reply at the enforcement board would have been: Ooops - won't happen again - i've self-reverted and raised it on talk. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I can`t self revert, i saw your message, asked a question to get clarification had me dinner and then hipocrite had already filed an rfe and reverted the stuff out. Fuck this shit you guys can keep the cc articles and shove them. I`m happy doing articles on books were i don`t get fucking hounded and abused all the time mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can't still self-revert, that isn't prohibited by Hipocrites action. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok now you have confused me, how can i self revert something which is already reverted? Bearing in mind i can only do 1r and am not allowed to reintroduce an edit which has already been reverted? mark nutley (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I hadn't seen that Hipocrite reverted you. So you are left with "Ooops sorry, i would have self-reverted if i could, but H beat me to it. It won't happen again ... <something about understanding the restriction>". (but really you should be the one doing it - instead of complaining that the world is unfair) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice of page ban

Under Climate Change general sanctions, I hereby inform you of the following result of a recent complaint about your edits:

• Marknutley (talk · contribs) is prohibited from introducing a new source to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing.

This sanction may be appealed to myself, the appropriate noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No mark nutley (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"No" what? ...

Mark, take this seriously. Play by the rules, even if you think they are unfair, or don't play at all. You cannot introduce sources at all any more unless you get someone else to vet them. Ask Cla. Ask me. Ask anyone. But ask. Or you'll be in even more trouble. That's just how it has to be. ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have played by the rules, the wp:rs rules, all the sources i used passed those rules, the last rfe was a vindictive request and not even needed, i would have self reverted in given the chance. I have asked The Wordsmith to review the new restrictions if he upholds it then i will consider the situation then, but for now it`s no mark nutley (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are subject to additional restrictions. You have to abide by those or take the consequences. Again, I'm happy to review any source you bring me and offer a good faith assessment of it. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

mn, you can't push the boundaries on something like this. Just like WMC, everything you do is going to be watched like a hawk. You added a new source to an article that is clearly beyond the restrictions (the blog). The only exceptions in the restriction are "articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media". WP:RS is superceded for you by those restrictions, so you cannot rely on that to justify an edit. If it's a new source to the article, and not clearly exempted fro teh restriction, you need to get it checked. Ravensfire (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok would either of you take a look at the sources and tell me if they were used appropriatly and if they are in fact reliable? mark nutley (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Which, the three below? For starters, 1 and 3 are blogs. What specifically makes them reliable? (there are a few limited exceptions to the no blogs rule)... please explain why they qualify and for what purpose. 2 reads like a blog too although it's at The Guardian so I'd have to dig deeper. I can, if those 3 are indeed what you have in mind) ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes the three below, the two blogs are reliable per wp:sps which says Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications Steve McIntyre and Roger A. Pielke, Jr. fall into this catagory. The other is The Register which is used as a source in hundreds of article on wp, it is a blog on there by Andrew Orlowski which is perfectly ok to use if attributed, you can see the text below it is mark nutley (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As MN says, #2 is El Rego, not the Grauniad. And no, El Rego is not an RS William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You`d best get busy then as it is used as a ref in hundreds of articles on WP mark nutley (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Register is going to be hit and miss, especially by subject area. For commenting on tech, it's pretty darn good. Several of its satire pieces have gone beyond "just" an article to a meme do to their popularity and spawning imitations. For something like this, I'd question it as a source. You want sources from people in the field. For the others - see WP:BLPSPS (as noted by Arthur Rubin below) Ravensfire (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve McIntyre wrote on Climate Audit that "Caspar and the jesus paper" a summary written on the blog was, "a detailed narrative written in a lively style of a story that’s been followed here for a few years and re-visited last week with the release of the Ammann SI".

Another summary titled "The Yamal Implosion" was praised by Andrew Orlowski who said "read this fascinating narrative by blogger BishopHill" and by Roger A. Pielke, Jr. who said, "And if you don't know what this is about, good luck catching up to speed (but if you want to try, there will be no better place than Bishop Hill's recounting)"

This aint no joke? I assume de:Gore-Effekt needs some further translations. Polentario (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(to MN) WP:BLP has an exception to WP:SPS. SPSs are never considered reliable when BLP material is considered. Some "blogs" are actually edited by a reliable source's editorial staff, so those would still be WP:RS in this context.

I'd also be willing to vet references for you, if I happen to be on at the time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Pielke and McIntyre blog posts cannot in general be used as reliable sources. The Register can with attribution. Keep in mind, however, that many Wikipedians dislike the Register for a number of reasons, perhaps because it often criticizes Wikipedia, so you may enounter some resistance when using it. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Appeal to ArbCom. This is the definition of censorship or it is the invitation to form teams. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys, i know you can`t use a blog in a blp, this is however not for a blp it is an article about a blog, pielke and McIntyre are both published scientists in the field this pertains to so surely they are reliable per wp:sps? it says it right here it wp:rs Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. How are these two guys not reliable under that criteria? mark nutley (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The statements made are about a living person, rather than about his blog or blogs he comments on. WP:BLP still applies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

But they all say Bishop Hill, not anybodys name? How is it a blp thing whe nno names are mentioned? mark nutley (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The very first line of WP:BLP: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." "Any" means what it says. More: "This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages." -- ChrisO (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris look above to what i added to the blog article, were in there is information about living persons The links are to an essay, no names are mentioned it the text i added, just Bishop Hill? mark nutley (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In a way I sympathize with Mark, because the sanction against him is poorly drafted. It says that he should get the opinion of an experienced editor before introducing sources. But experienced editors can disagree, as they did above, and his obtaining such advice he might construe as a "seal of approval" when editors on the page may disagree. I see this as a recipe for more conflict. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If he had sought any editors approval before introducing the source and received such, he could have introduced it. If he started forum shopping after rejections, that would be a separate problem, that would need a separate discussion, but it is not currently prohibited. Some of the sources he's used are so transparently bad that no editor who actually looked into them would ever sanction them. Diffs on request. Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree about some being transparently bad. I was involved in that original dispute, in fact. What bothers me about this sanction is that I don't think it changes anything. I'm sure there are experienced editors out there who feel that blogs are OK, for instance. There are differing opinions over the Register, just in this discussion. I think the original sanction might have been better, perhaps if toughened. This is bad not just from the standpoint of Mark, who is going to get dragged into more disputes in which he is going to feel right, but from the standpoint of the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You made an oopsie on a user talk page

On User talk:LakersFanKB24, you fully transcluded the {{hangon}} template. I have a feeling you intended it to show up as brackets and the name, not a transclusion (I fixed this). By transcluding it, you nominated that user talk page for speedy deletion. If you want to make a template show up like a link, use, for example, {{tl|hangon}} to make it show like I think you intended. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

MSN

Hi mark, thanks for the notice regarding the deletion. I was personally unsure of whether to create the article, I should know better than to throw something unreferenced into Wiki. I'll see if I can add the info into the Serial Number article and find some sources. Rodface (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources: advice

Although your probation is in terms of *adding* sources the clear implication is that you are not trusted to evaluate sources. Thus, you should also take care on *removing* sources. This edit [14] fails that test. Unless you do take care, you can expect to be back before the beak to have your probation tightened William M. Connolley (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That is an op-ed which i have been told plenty of times is not suitable for use in a blp, it stays out. mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please cite where you have been told that, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That is an op-ed which i have... that was exactly the sort of response that got you into your current probation. Please, slow down, ask advice from someone you trust before doing this again William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My thinking: Marknutley is right that salon.com is not the best source for that statement. But that statement has to be widely publicised, it's not credible to assume all the followon references dissecting it were to a statement not actually uttered. So instead of removing the source, he should tag it for replacement, leaving it in place for the nonce, or find the replacement himself and do the replacement. IF he fails in finding the replacement, something needs fixing (why do all the followon sources ref the event, what's going on?) and a discussion on talk should ensue. (I came here because Marknutley has queued up something he wants me to look at.) WMC's advice that Marknutley should ask advice first before removing sources... happens to be correct in my view. It's not delivered in a very collegial way, at all, but it's correct. ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You've taken it out again [15]. Your first removal was a revert (of whatever edit added that source). Your second is a violation of your 1RR parole. It is also a violation of the advice Lar gave you, above William M. Connolley (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops i was half an hour out but i claim BLP exemption. Plus lat actually said to find a better source, which i will. Until then blp applies and op`eds are not good enough sources for a blp, i see hipocrite has already found another source i shall try to find another. mark nutley (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you actually disputing that Monckton said it? When it's all over the web, transcripted, and the video of his speech itself is viewable? Why don't you ever bother to do your homework before sticking your feet in it again? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris, I would think you might be better serving the article and the project by fixing the sourcing yourself (since you know where else to source the statement from) instead of berating Marknutley. ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don`t care if it`s all over the web, using a blog in a blp is not on mark nutley (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a self-published blog. "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry hipocrite but were is the proof that this blog is under full editorial control? I`m just going by what several experianced editors have said here [16] Are they wrong then? mark nutley (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Cease disrupting wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: Please stop blustering. It's not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar, I'm going to take your advice. I will no longer warn anyone when they are falling dramatically afoul of policies - in the future, persuant to your advice, I'll just report them on the first instance, starting here. Hope that helps. Hipocrite (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't my advice, and I think you know it. "Cease disrupting wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. " is bluster. "You might consider that this action might be considered disruption and you might try action Y instead" is advice. Please give good advice whenever it's convenient for you. And please do not bluster. It would be greatly appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not disrupting anything, i am being extra careful with regards to sources and especially BLP`s, please see the article talk page mark nutley (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP exemption is not acceptable given your history with sources and Lar's response, above. Are you prepared to back away from this? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP exemption is always acceptable, and funnily enough if i had been left alone for ten minutes i might have actually found a source which is reliable by now, nut hipocrite and yourself keep distracting me, go figure mark nutley (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Source cleared?

Who did you clear this addition of a source with? I'm not saying you're wrong to include it, but you are "prohibited from introducing a new source to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing." Hipocrite (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It was cleared with Cla mark nutley (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Please pre-clear sources on-wiki in the future. Hipocrite (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I`ll clear them in a way most expedient for myself. mark nutley (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless you want to be queried like this for EVERY source you add, you really need to do this on wiki. On principle, it's better anyway to do this on wiki. Off line stuff just causes trouble because it looks like you're hiding something. Create a user subpage, give a link to it on your user and talk page and keep a running track of sources that you'd like to be vetted. If the process isn't transparent, you're just going to end up in more trouble. Ravensfire (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ravensfire is correct. While I would have approved your most recent source, in the event of a source that is questionable or wrong being approved via a non verifiable format, you're going to have a he-said-she-said problem. Please keep an on-wiki log of these approvals in your user space, and state that such can only be edited by you and others you authorize to edit it. I won't get in the way of your approval process, and I would not countence others doing so. Hipocrite (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Indur

I made some general cleanup edits to your draft on Indur M. Goklany. Feel free to ask me any questions you might have as to why I made the changes I made. NW (Talk) 14:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope it all looks good, thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark, at your offline request I have reviewed the sources as of [17] that version, and put my findings on the talk page. Please advise of any questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

RFE

I've filed another RFE regarding your challenging sources in one article as an attempt to prove a point about another article. You may respond at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Marknutley_2. Hipocrite (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't

Do this [18]. The PDF is fine' it is on his own website. And it is a public report And lastly, if ever you do need to remove something (definitely not true in this case) then you should clearly mark the removed text William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Self-published or primary sources

Hi Mark, the prohibition on using self-published or primary sources, particularly sources that show a subject's personal details, don't apply when the BLP subject is the publisher. See WP:BLPSPS. Where a BLP is posting his own address, it's not usually problematic unless it's being done to advertise or something similar, but that's not the case here.

You did a nice job on that article by the way. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i wish you had mentioned that about ten minutes ago :) no matter i was going to get screwed over again anyway mark nutley (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hide the decline - We're duplicating our efforts

I already asked the deleting editor[19] to copy the article to my user space.[20] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Bugger, ok i`ll get mine deleted then :) mark nutley (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Working together as a team. It's a pleasure to see William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly certain i have asked you not to post on my talk page, please refrain from doing so again mark nutley (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This may all be in moot anyway. I'm guessing and hoping that the three of us will all be topic-banned by ArbCom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sanction breaking on Mass killings under Communist regimes

So i got a one week block for breaking those sanctions, yet User:The Four Deuces [21] reverts and does not go to the talk page to explain why. User:Petri Krohn [22] reverts and does not go to the talk page and now User:AndyTheGrump [23] does the same, so are the sanctions imposed on this article now null and void? If so then should`nt someone remove the template? mark (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I restored a POV tag. As you have pointed out, there remains a dispute about the POV of the article. An editor removed the tag thrice in three days, and I thank you for reminding me of the dispute. TFD (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply it's because one side employs block shopping as a dispute "resolution" tactic, and runs to AE with anything no matter how trivial and minor, while the other side shrugs it off. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know why you talk about "sides". There are people of different viewpoints no doubt but the main thing is to follow Wikipedia policy in writing articles - that is the side I am on and I hope others are too. TFD (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I see what you meant Merak, TFD went running to an admin to complain about the POV tag being removed [24] and made an insinuation of sockpuppetry to boot so the admin went and warned A50000 [25], strange how TFD did not mention he, petri and andy had all broken the restrictions on that article already mark (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

@Mark .. if you are blocked, it doesn't really seem like you have standing to assist in any sanction enforcement. Seems a bit odd to see this, so thought I might drop you a note. BigK HeX (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Just making passing comments on it mate, it kinda bugs me that TFD got me blocked for a week for breaking a restriction on that article yet he does it and two others who kinda line up on his side do it yet i do not see him running to AE. Well i`m hopeing to be unblocked soon, perhaps when I am these guys will be a bit more careful :) mark (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Good luck! I never really figured out how your status managed to get mangled into an indef, but I'm confident that you'll be back in due time, and will be better prepared for those times we all run into on WP when tempers flare. BigK HeX (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation

[26] Sourced to an IP only address which no longer seems to work, No actual domain, really ought to be excised mark (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holiday Mark. Well I tried to repair it and didn't find anything so I tagged it as uncited section and dead link Mark although I should remove it really I don't want to be accused of Meat puppet for you do I. How is your unblock going, yew year was mentioned, write to the new arbcom when Jimmy titles them in the next few days and throw yourself on their eternal mercy, so to speak. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Rob. Hope your having a good crimbo yourself. Yes i may appeal to the new committee once they are on the job. Hopefully they will still have a little mercy in their souls after going through the election :). mark (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DarknessShines2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Would someone be so kind as to post on the Arbcom noticeboard and ask if it is possible for myself to be unblocked now? Thanks mark (talk) 10:02 am, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I'm only marking this as declined since it appears Arbcom (below) is either aware of or handling this request. If they're not, please feel free to repost. TNXMan 14:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi, Mark, where or to who would you like this request to be notified? As there is not really as I can see a place to talk to Arbcom specifically - email is the recommended method see here for the details- I have left a message on Chase me ladies talkpage here as he is on the ban appeals commitee, Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rob. Flonight said to ask the new committee but i have no idea if there is a specific board for this or not :) mark (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Mark, Could you email your unblock request to the committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org? Best regards, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank mate, e-mail sent. mark (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Good luck Mark – don't let the bastards get you down. Jprw (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers mate :) hopefully I`ll hear back soon, it`s been eight days now :) mark (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Marknutley, have the Arbitration Committe responded to your e-mail? HeyMid (contribs) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not as yet :( mark (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of being unblocked for my birthday on the 15th I wonder? mark (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you have the same birthday as a guy I acknowledged in my M.S. thesis! Good luck with your request. My experience is that Arbcom would rather gnaw off their own legs than give useful guidance to editors, but maybe something will shake loose. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've prodded the beast. Let's see what happens... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Stephan, very good of you mate. I have the same Birthday as Captain Beefheart :) I remember him from when i was younger :) mark (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks as if the beast has stirred, but not yet risen. Happy Birthday, anyways! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And, the same thing from Heymid! :) And that birthday will be much more fun if you also get unblocked today! HeyMid (contribs) 10:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes

Thanks man, hmmmm cake mark (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy tenth anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyMid (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 17:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Cake and scotch :) burp, hic :) mark (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Communist Terrorism

May as well collapse this mark (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Communist terrorism is the term used to describe terrorist actions committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology and who use terrorism in their attempts to overthrow an existing political and economic system in an attempt to force regime change. It is the hope of such groups that the use of violence will inspire the masses to raise up in revolution. In recent years, there has been a marked decrease in such terrorism, which has been substantially credited to the end of the Cold War and the fall of the U.S.S.R. However, at its apogee, communism was argued by some to be the major source of international terrorism (whether inspired by the ideology or supported by its states). These groups, which Dennis Pluchinsky states found their ideological guide in Marxism- Leninism and the 13 principles he has identified which believes form the core of their ideology are. 1. The world is viewed through “dialectical materialism,” the Marxist-Leninist approach to the analysis of history. 2. Capitalism is the root cause of all the problems of the proletariat. 3. Capitalism can only be displaced by force. 4. The proletariat does not currently possess the necessary revolutionary consciousness to carry out the violent overthrow of the capitalist system. 5. The traditional communist parties have forfeited their right to represent the proletariat. 6. The fighting communist organizations are forced to fill the revolutionary void of traditional communist parties. 7. In order to survive its present crisis, capitalism must resort to industrial “restructuring.” 8. Imperialism is also in crisis. 9. Western Europe serves as the “imperialist center” that is composed of a “chain of states,” manufactured by the United States. 10. The latent fascist tendencies of the capitalist, imperialist state must be exposed to the proletariat. 11. The revolutionary war against imperialism will be a long, protracted armed struggle. 12. The revolutionary armed struggle consists of two phases. The first phase would armed propaganda phase, with three components: a revolutionary strategy, communist organization, and initiation of armed combat. The second and final the revolutionary civil war. The “armed propaganda” phase reflects the anarchist propaganda by the deed” concept. 13. The next revolutionary stage for an FCO is the "fighting Communist party." Historiography In 1917 after the Russian Revolution one of the main features of the new communist regime was the use of terrorism to subdue the populace, the use of terrorism has been described as "evident in the regimes very origins" by historian Anna Geifman. Vladimir Lenin stated that his “Jacobian party would never reject terror, nor could it do so", and that they used the Jacobian Reign of Terror of 1793-1794 as a model for their own Red Terror. Felix Dzerzhinsky founder of the Cheka used terrorist actions against all classes of people, though the peasants were heavily targeted due to their refusal to give excessive amounts of grain to the government. Upon founding the New Economic Policy(NEP) Lenin stated, "It is a mistake to think the NEP has put an end to terrorism. We shall return to terrorism, and it will be an economic terrorism" One such result of this type of terrorism was the Holodomor, in which four to ten million people starved to death. In the 1940`s and 1950`s in various Southeast Asian countries such as Malaya, The Philippines and Vietnam communist parties began to conduct terrorist operations. the leaders of these groups saw the use of terrorism as a form of "agitation propaganda" which was an overall part of their long term strategy. In the 1960`s the Sino–Soviet split also lead to increased terrorism. Communist groups in Latin America and South Asia believing that the Soviet Union had abandoned the revolution. Such a group are the Naxalite terrorist organization in India, this Maoist organization believed the use of terrorism is a necessary part of revolution. Communist Terrorism in the Vietnam War In the 1950`s communist terrorism was rife in South Vietnam with political leaders, provincial chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors and members of the military being targeted. Between 1965 and 1972 terrorists had killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand. In Saigon terrorist actions have been described as "long and murderous" The firing of automatic weapons, planting bombs and throwing grenades were the tactics used. The prime minister of the time Tran Van Huong was shot in an attempted assassination. Infant victim of Dak Son massacre The Massacre at Huế has been described as one of the worst communist terrorist actions during the Vietnam War. with some estimates saying up to 5000 dead. The United States Army recorded as killed, "3800 killed in and around Huế, 2786 confirmed civilians massacred, 2226 civilians found in mass graves and 16 non Vietnamese civilians killed. Some apologists have claimed the majority of deaths were caused by US bombing in the fight to retake the city, however the vast majority of dead were found in Mass Graves outside the city. Historian Douglas Pike has also described as a terrorist act the Dak Son Massacre. On December 6 1967 the Viet Cong used Flame throwers on civilians in the village of Dak Son killing 252 the majority of those incinerated being women and children. Communist Terrorism in Malaya Main article: Malayan Emergency Led by Chin Peng in 1947 a communist insurgency began in Malaya. Within four months of the Federation of Malaya agreement being signed the Malayan communist party began terrorist attacks which lead to the assassination of British High Commissioner, Sir Henry Gurney in 1951. These communist terrorist attacks reached their apex in 1951, however these attacks have been described as a "wave of desperation". In 1949 over seven hundred people died from terrorist actions, and during 1950/51 casualty's were running at an estimated 100 law enforcement officers and 90 non-combatants a month being killed. Communist Terrorism in the Philippines The New People's Army terrorist group in the Philippines have conducted seventy-eight attacks on civilian targets between 1987 and 1992. After a ten year break they began operations again and have since conducted forty-two attacks between 2000 and 2006. Notes References Jerrold M. Post. The Mind of the Terrorist: The Psychology of Terrorism from the IRA to Al-Qaeda. 3 April 2008. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1403966117 Brian Crozier. Political victory: the elusive prize of military wars. Transaction Publishers 31 May 2005. ISBN 978-0765802903 David C. Wills. The First War on Terrorism: Counter-terrorism Policy During the Reagan Administration. Rowman & Littlefield 28 August 2003. ISBN 978-0742531291 Marcus C. Levitt, Tatyana Novikov. Times of trouble: violence in Russian literature and culture. 1st edition. University of Wisconsin Press 15 Dec 2007. ISBN 978-0299224301 Leonard Weinberg. Political parties and terrorist groups. 2nd Revised Edition. 6 November 2008. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415775366 Mark Moyar. Phoenix and the Birds of Prey: Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism in Vietnam. Bison Books 15 January 2008. ISBN 978-0803216020 Michael Lee Lanning, Dan Cragg. Inside the VC and the NVA: the real story of North Vietnam's armed forces. 1st edition. Texas A & M University Press 15 August 2008. ISBN 978-1603440592 Charles A. Krohn. The lost battalion of Tet: breakout of the 2/12th Cavalry at Hue. Naval Institute Press Rev. Pbk. edition. 15 February 2008. ISBN 978-1591144342 T. Louise Brown, War and aftermath in Vietnam. Routledge. 2 May 1991. ISBN 978-0415014038 Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World. State University of New York Press Illustrated edition. 3 November 2005. ISBN 978-0791466179 Nghia M. Vo. The bamboo gulag: political imprisonment in communist Vietnam. McFarland & Company 31 December 2003. ISBN 978-0786417148 Randall D. Law. Terrorism: a history. Polity Press 26 August 2009. ISBN 978-0745640389 Dan G. Cox, John Falconer, Brian Stackhouse. Terrorism, instability, and democracy in Asia and Africa. Northeastern University Press 15 April 2009. ISBN 978-1555537050 Richard W. Mansbach, Kirsten L. Rafferty. Introduction to Global Politics. Routledge. annotated edition. 6 Sep 2007. ISBN 978-0415773836 C. J. M. Drake. Terrorists' target selection. Palgrave Macmillan. 5 February 2003. ISBN 978-0312211974 David Schmidtz, Jason Brennan. A Brief History of Liberty (Brief Histories of Philosophy). Wiley-Blackwell 22 January 2010. ISBN 978-1405170796

Maybe another 2 weeks

Hello again! Per Wikipedia:Appealing a block, unblock requests to ArbCom may take "at least 4 weeks to reach a final decision". In other words, don't be surprised if you'll have to wait another 2 weeks before they get back to you. HeyMid (contribs) 10:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That`s a shame, I may not be able to nominate myself for the election :) mark (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

John Birch Society

Misrepresentation of sources. [27] [28] Neither source supports the labels of radical right-wing as stated on the talk page. [29]

Given the the JBS is doubtlessly radical right-wing, I assume you are looking for better sources? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Strangely enough, no. Not having heard back about my unblock request it seems pointless to do further research. I have been editing the Mises Wiki, at least the Communist terrorism article there does not look like an abortion :) mark (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

But you got me curious so here`s one :)

• Martin Durham. The Christian right: the far right and the boundaries of American conservatism. Manchester University Press. 19 October 2000. ISBN 978-0719054860 page 178 will do the job mark (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Unblock declined

I shan`t bother asking again in six months, I have already been blocked nearly that long already for christ`s sake. Should anyone happen by please remove the Coton quote from the user page, someone asked me via e-mail if I would consider removing it. mark (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. We've had our differences but you've got a sense of humor and don't take yourself too seriously, which counts for a lot. Wish I could say the same for certain other "respected admins and content contributors." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I just want to give you my support and say I hope you get unblocked real soon. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That WP:STANDARDOFFER is of doubtful value anyways, I have seen it refused more than accepted, its nothing to hold on for, best of luck to you Mark, there are plenty of other projects worthy of contributing to if you feel you want to, or there is real life which is better for you anyways. Active editor numbers here is on the decline .. editors who make over 100 editors a month shows a 10% annual decline ... so at least you are not alone Mark - Best of luck to you. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

{{adminhelpme}} Fighting Communist Organizations I wrote this article [30] for the Mises wiki, please remove it or attribute the content to me. Thanks. mark (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mark. The first edit summary for the Wikipedia article says "Creating article for my bro." I take it you're stating that this is false? (BTW, I'm not an admin, but I'll see that one looks into this if it isn't dealt with soon.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My brother has no interest in terrorism whatsoever, he would not even know of the article. I can mail him if needed but I very much doubt he would have done this and not mentioned it to me :) Thank you andy mark (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked_user_Marknutley_claiming_a_copyright_violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Attributed. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Fetch, but the article has been deleted so case closed. Thanks to all for the prompt response mark (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Obamaland.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Obamaland.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

an honourable trade

I've created Category:Gasfitters and am currently populating it; lots of trades union people, at least one Noble Prize winner and one murderer who has been suggested as possibly Jack the Ripper. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)