User talk:MartinTheK

September 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Cullen skink, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Cullen skink, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sebastian Bergman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

On November 7. 2014 the series began streaming, with English subtitles, on the MHZ network {www.mhznetworks.org) beginning with "Dark Secrets" on rotation with their other nightly selection of international

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Montanabw. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Please read our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes article for resolving content and behavioral disputes. In the meantime, quit edit warring and stop attacking other editors. Dreadstar ☥ 20:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my raising it is not an insult to request someone's financial interest in publishing a claim to their veracity or non-bias. Apparently that is not the case in these quarters. Thank you for the lesson.MartinTheK (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a threatening and abusive post which violates our Wikipedia:Civility and No personal attacks policies. As for 'requesting someone's financial interest', see WIkipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:Outing. You have no reason to be accusing the other editor of having a financial interest - you haven't even discussed your proposed edits properly - so read WP:Consensus to see how that works too. Dreadstar ☥ 21:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the lesson. People have accused me of threatening and abusive behavior since I raised questions about the invasion of Iraq. Since before that even. I keep hoping I will some day find a tactful way to expose greed and deceit, but it has, alas, continued to elude me. I am heaping ashes on my head.Please forgive me if I have committed lese majeste. Years of adversity and meditation have taught me that when people cry "abuse" when you ask about money, there is ALWAYS dirty work at the crossroadsMartinTheK (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About your Third Opinion request: Your request has been removed/declined because there has not been sufficient discussion of the dispute in question at the article talk page. All moderated content dispute resolution processes at en-Wikipedia require thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. (Moreover, if you do get to the point where you need and qualify for dispute resolution, please thoroughly read and follow the instructions on both the DR venue's page and on the listing page. Your listing at 3O failed to comply in a number of different ways with the 3O instructions and broke the page formatting as well.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TransporterMan....Thank you.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks on other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dreadstar ☥ 23:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for making this personal attack and continued incivility [1][2] after being warned. Dreadstar ☥ 23:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I realize and regret that I have violated your policy. I would like to apologize and amend my words to make them in accordance with the guidelines. I promise that henceforth, I will not make personal attacks, but only comment on content. Please allow me to do so now.

Accept reason:

With the understanding that you won't make the same mistakes again, as per your word in your unblock request — Ched : ? 18:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion with Dreadstar, he has agreed to an unblock. Understanding what led to the block is key here, and make no mistake - any further attacks will be swiftly dealt with. Personally I would suggest avoiding subjects which you feel so strongly about. Trust me, I do understand cynical, but there are rules that must be adhered to on Wikipedia. — Ched : ? 18:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, Ched. I must point out that I had originally requested review of this dispute but was DIRECTED to continue discussing this before that could happen. See Transportman's note. I am no troll and would never have addressed these people directly on my own again. Thanks to your intervention, I can now proceed to pursue mediation as I originally wanted. Why is it that "incivility" is generally the accusation of people who have both hooves in the trough? I am grateful for Dreadstar's reaffirmation of that aphorism.

On another note, I received three email message from Dreadstar that she had left me messages on wikipedia, but - being blocked- could not read them, nor do I see them here today. It is remarkable being admonished by infallible people.MartinTheK (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just now received another email message from Ched that he has sent me a message sent 8 minutes after the first, yet I see none here. Where are these hidden messages? The world wonders...MartinTheK (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I can't speak to any email issues; but be careful with sarcasm and confrontational tones. This is an unusual culture on wiki which highlights a global view of information. The people here are not just a small group of friends visiting your house for a chat. Nobody is "infallible", but it's best to choose non-accusational terms when discussing things. Personally I would suggest sticking with topics which are not volatile until you have a better handle on the nature of things here in this environment. It's easy to get drawn into a subject that you feel strongly about, and therefore easy to make mistakes in how you approach those things. This isn't a mandate, indeed you can read WP:BEBOLD, I'm just suggesting that caution be your guide as well. — Ched : ? 19:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well-spoken. But if Darwin had followed it where would we be? I will guard my speech as best I can. I was offended because a 69 year old woman had ridden horseback over a 13,777 foot pass in Kyrgyzstan to find this information and she was being characterized as a meddling dupe by these people whose rice bowl is obviously threatened by what she found. I believe that St. Francis himself would have slapped those people silly.MartinTheK (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

email

It sounds to me as though you have the "email" option ticked in your preferences. This sends you an email when someone posts a comment to your talk page. It doesn't mean you "have" email - it's only a notification that someone has posted here on your talk page. — Ched : ? 19:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note - I've now sent you an actual email so that you can see the difference. — Ched : ? 19:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent no emails to this user, it's either the preferences setting as Ched describes or the "You have new messages" banner. I have to add, MartinTheK, that if you continue making unsubstantiated allegations such as the above "Why is it that "incivility" is generally the accusation of people who have both hooves in the trough?" you will be reblocked. Dreadstar ☥ 20:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:ASPERSIONS and note that it comes directly from Arbcom. I strongly suggest Martin that you do some reading before you continue posting. — Ched : ? 20:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dreadstar ☥ 20:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you indefinitely for making this attack right after being unblocked, in addition to your false assertions above. Dreadstar ☥ 21:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

It is untrue that I have attacked any person. I quote " It is a sad reflection on America". I have made NO personal reference to anyone unless you call all the people on this page "America". Madam, Are you acussing me of sedition or are you abusing your position because of your gender?. Show me exactly in the policy where seditious statements are proscribed and forbidden, please. Show me where that is and I will be pleased to be exiled from such tyranny.

Decline reason:

It does not appear your unblock request deals with the reasoning for the block. You unblock request itself is hostile in nature. Chillum 00:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

.MartinTheK (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreadstar: I am not sure how this diff justifies an indef block. Can you help me understand if there is any context I am missing? Chillum 21:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This false accusation about other editors: "It is a sad reflection on America that her efforts should be greeted with the denigration that I have found on this page." No editor denigrated anyone, contrary to this editor's assertions. The editor should have been on their best behavior and followed their promise to comment on content, not others. Then the misleading unblock request, claiming the comment was just a reflection on America - it clearly wasn't. But, if you want to unblock, be my guest. Dreadstar ☥ 22:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I indef blocked because the user went right back to attacks immediately after being unblocked. And I'm not too happy about the verbiage in this latest unblock request either. Accusing me of abusing the tools because of my gender? Which they assume is female? Oh, please - clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Dreadstar ☥ 22:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following quotes are taken verbatim from the Appaloosa talk page. They are made by editors who self identified themselves as female. To my knowledge they have never been admonished or cautioned for these very questionable remarks. I on the other hand find myself permanently blocked by "dreadstar". The nature of dread star's gender is immaterial to the obvious fact that I am being subjected to a double standard of scrutiny and punishment because I don't have a second X chromosome. Or do you claim that this is also a "fringe theory"? I hope this matter can be settled here without recourse to an appeal to higher scrutiny. And I want either my edit restored as a just and rightful response to this rather catty calumny, Or I want these feminine offenses to common manners to be equally expunged

"The Daily Mail presents Engstrom's theory that "American-born Scott always believed they came from Asia across the Bering Strait between Alaska and Russia" As Ealdgyth points out with links to scientific literature, that assertion is simply patent nonsense and WP:FRINGE."

"The Daily Mail (such an expert source) also presents Engstrom's theory that there are "fewer than 200 true Appaloosas left in the world". That is also patent nonsense: The Appaloosa museum explains that there were about 200 officially registered Appaloosas in 1947. By 1978 there were 300,000 (living and deceased of course). Today there are 635,000. This breed isn't even close to "rare." " "But Scott has often questioned this history because she thinks the numbers of spotted horses that were in the Pacific north-west part of America when [explorers] Lewis and Clark first made their way over the Rockies in the early 1800s didn’t quite tally with her experience of being a breeder. She said there were too many of them for that to be the case, so she’d always had this theory that maybe horses had come across the Pacific into America by a different route." ... THAT is a fringe theory. " MartinTheK (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed email attack

per WP:EMAILPOST I have removed your latest post. If this continues, I will remove your talkpage privileges as well. Further, if Ms. Scott does come to Wikipedia and makes personal attacks such as you describe in the email, she will be blocked as well. You need to start reading the links people are giving you if you ever hope to participate here. I applaud any person's travels - but you may want to ensure that she reads our page about original research as well. Your own confrontational tone and battlefield approach is not acceptable here. You say you have difficulty in this area, but it is quite simple: Try NOT ... DO, or Do not. ~ Yoda. — Ched : ? 00:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm revdeleting them as a BLP vio, and removing talk page access. Dreadstar ☥ 01:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked (with conditions)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

UTRS appeal #13168

Accept reason:

As agreed (between myself, MartinTheK, Ched and Dreadstar), your account has been unblocked since you have agreed to the following conditions:

6-month topic ban from Appaloosa (and associated people), which thus expires 0:00UTC, 16-August-2015 (for the sake of simplicity)
A commitment from you that you understand why the broad insulting statements you have made are inappropriate and not helpful (even if they do not target specific persons), and that you will not make such statements again, in relation to any topic or group.

This offer is made with the understanding that not respecting these conditions will be ground for reblocking, but that we are making this offer specifically because we would prefer avoid having you blocked altogether. If you want to see the details of what a topic ban (known colloquially as a "TBAN") entails, you can find the details here. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know what the money that I have contributed to wikipedia has really been used for. Thank you for the lesson.MartinTheK (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statements like are what we meant by "broad, non-specific insulting statements". I understand you aren't happy about the way things are going, and we're not trying to censor your (probably valid) criticism, but throwing these statements out there without any specific, addressable situation or constructive discussion is not helpful, for us or for you. We both know you can find better uses for your time and your words. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin - I really stuck my neck out here - please don't make me regret it. — Ched : ? 20:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Discussion of how my contribution was used by Wikpedia can get me struck off. Quod Erat Demonstratum MartinTheK (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]