User talk:Mk5384

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mk5384. I note that you seem to have ended up in an edit war at Blackjack. Please understand that while your contributions are appreciated, things we happen to know to be true from our own experience are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia articles unless they have also been previously published in a reliable source. And the onus to provide sources falls on the editor wishing to add (not remove) material: material about which editors have doubts can be removed without the need for a rebutting source.

Please consider having a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:3RR. If you have questions, I'm happy to help. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 15:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk5384, let me add that you really should not come on to a forum and assume you know more than everyone else. Also, using terms like "clown," to rfefer to editors, as you just did on Mitted's page, is a violation of WP:CIV. Something Mitted knows a lot about having been blocked after repeatedly blanking my Talk page. We are all volunteers here.Objective3000 (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You've added the name "Malcolm Shabazz" to Malcolm X twice. Under Wikipedia's policies, we can't include that in the article unless you can provide reliable sources that indicate Malcolm X was known by that name. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I double-checked, and I can't find "Malcolm Shabazz" in The Autobiography of Malcolm X. As I wrote, that information can't stay in the article unless there are reliable sources that indicate Malcolm X was known by that name. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I reviewed the Autobiography and searched an e-book version. No occurrence of "Malcolm Shabazz".

(2) Except for a few uses, such as Malcolm Shabazz City High School, Masjid Malcolm Shabazz and the Malcolm Shabazz Market, I can't find any indication that Malcolm X was known as "Malcolm Shabazz".

(3) Even if we could find a few mentions of Malcolm X as "Malcolm Shabazz", the purpose of the infobox and the first sentence is to include the most important names by which a person was known. We don't include "Red", "Detroit Red", "Satan", "Omowale", or any of the other names or nicknames by which Malcolm X was known because they're not significant. Likewise, we wouldn't include "Malcolm Shabazz" because it's not significant. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mk5384

Just following up our discussion re Mr Choules, I found this on a non-authoritative website dealing with the history of HMS Revenge [1]

Post Jutland she performed manoeuvres and sweeps of the North Sea but the German fleet never again put to sea in force, in November 1916 Revenge became the flagship of Admiral Madden – the second in command of the Grand Fleet,. In 1917 she was refitted at an unknown port and on the 05th November 1918 she was at anchor in the Firth of Forth when the Campania, an auxiliary sea-plane carrier dragged her anchor and collided with the bows of the Revenge, Revenge received moderate damage repaired at Rosyth but the Campania sank In 1919 Revenge had a stern-walk added for her role as flagship, she was the only one of her class so fitted and thus easily identified.

and this from the Battle of Jutland article on the Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 2001 edition:

The British had sustained greater losses than the Germans in both ships and men. In all, the British lost three battle cruisers, three cruisers, eight destroyers, and 6,274 officers and men in the Battle of Jutland. The Germans lost one battleship, one battle cruiser, four light cruisers, five destroyers, and 2,545 officers and men. The losses inflicted on the British, however, were not enough to affect the numerical superiority of their fleet over the German in the North Sea, where their domination remained practically unchallengeable during the course of the war. Henceforth, the German High Seas Fleet chose not to venture out from the safety of its home ports.

I suppose there would have been a risk from German U-boats and mines, but in terms of actual combat, I think we would be struggling to find anything. Cheers Moldovanmickey (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there again,

Thanks for your message. Do let me know if you find out anything more from Mr Choules' book. I think that he actually wrote it in his 80s but it has only just been published. He is 109 tomorrow, and from reports on the net, he is very frail, blind and almost completely deaf. Let us hope that he is able to have some enjoyment in his remaining time. I keep meaning to buy Harry Patch's book and have read chunks of it in the local bookshop- I was fortunate enough to see Mr Patch, Mr Allingham and Mr Stone at the Cenotaph in London on November 11th 2008 and was also able to attend Mr Patch's funeral last year, and a very moving and appropriate service it was too. If you would like me to scan and e-mail a copy of the Order of Service for you, leave your e-mail address on my talk page and I'll sort that out for you.

Cheers,Moldovanmickey (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One final thought, on the definition of "combatant". My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines this as a (person) that fights, whilst Merriam-Webster [2]defines it as one that is engaged in or ready to engage in combat, so on the latter definition, Mr Choules could be described as a combatant without actually having seen any combat; on the first definition he could not. It just shows what a cruel mistress the English language can be- there may even be a different emphasis in American as opposed to British English. You do seem to be favouring the first definition, however, as I would.

Moldovanmickey (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. The Royal Logistics Corps Museum, Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut, Camberley, GU16 6RW, per the website [3], there is also a website for the Friends of the Royal Logistic Corps Museum at [4]. I wouldn't claim to have much knowledge about Armed Forces history, by the way! One further thought I had is to try to contact Richard van Endem for his opinion in view of this book [5], which I haven't read, although I seem to recall he made a fairly oblique reference to the Surviving First World War Veterans wikipdia pages in Harry Patch's book- I think he called it "slightly morbid" or something similar... I only mention this as as you know, Netherwood Hughes was never officially recognised as a veteran due to the absence of any records. I think wikipedians in the end took the view that if Dennis Goodwin recognised him, that was good enough! Of course, he got nowhere with Mr Terrey's case. Good luck! Moldovanmickey (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think to make it fit in we should just go along with the rest of the appropriate additions in the list, but I thought I had added it the same way as the rest of the list for the unrecognised states. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean, then yes. Have Prince go to Prince of Sealand (If such a page exists) and just leave Roy I as it is with it's link to Mr Bates. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have the backlash now as it's been removed, their defense being that it's not sovereign. I would go back again but I fear I may be subject of an attempt to be blocked under the 3RR rule. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great. If it's been up for 3 days I doubt they'll delete it in future without good reason The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wanted to remind you that Wikipedia:Edit warring applies even if you don't breach the letter of WP:3RR and wait 24 hours before making your fourth revert. Now, I realize that I'm not an impartial editor in this dispute. But what consensus exists is against you, and the burden is on you to convince other editors why Iverson should be considered a former member of the 76ers, even though he is under contract, on the roster and collecting a paycheck from the team. Your edit seems to run afoul of WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. --Mosmof (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I should have WP:AGF'd. --Mosmof (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you had trouble getting the auto updating template to work correctly. The various parameters listed here in the documentation should help you understand what is going on. Since you display multiple awards, you may want to consider using the format parameter so that they are all auto updating. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 222° 37' 15" NET 14:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You've made a number of edits claiming that Bill Bruford's website demonstrates that he's been doing studio work since his retirement date of 1 Jan 2009. I can see nothing on Bruford's website to support that. Can you be more specific in terms of a particular webpage (URL) or project? Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OberRanks posted on WP:AN/I about your repeated posting of messages on User talk:OberRanks after being reverted. It's usually considered bad form to continue posting like that, and in the worst case, could be considered harassment and lead to sanctions. Also, telling people to "grow up" and referring to their comments as "juvenile nonsense" does not comply terribly well with Wikipedia's civility guidelines. Please be more careful with what you type in the future. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:John J. Pershing, you will be blocked for vandalism. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[6], [7] shows the removals. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been a mistake on your part but the article history clearly shows you removed Durova's comments twice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you make your statement on ANI about this based on the assumption that everyone will say the edits were done by your account. There are two options 1) It was a mistake on your part (it happens) or 2) Someone guessed your password and logged in as you (highly unlikely and we have ways to check if edits come from the same computer). Please also consider carefully reading WP:CONSENSUS before commenting on the article further. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Edit conflict. If you have any questions, let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, do you understand what to do now when you get an edit conflict? This is important as you don't want to be further removing other editors' comments any more even by accident. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clear up the ANI discussion about the removal of comments I would say something like, "I removed Durova's comments by accident as I received an edit conflict message and was not sure what that was. I understand now and it won't happen again." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was an honest mistake, and Durova herself, agreed with that on the ANI page.Mk5384 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm sorry, I've blocked you for 48 hours. You seem to be in danger of losing your perspective right now and I think you need an enforced break. While you're waiting, please spend some time considering how you might go about discussing the matter with rather less rhetoric and inflammatory language. You also need to assume good faith and accept that, however strongly you feel, other editors may interpret our rules and guidelines differently and be acting out of entirely scrupulous motives. Ascribing motives is rarely a productive route in any dispute on Wikipedia anyway. You could also think about some other, less confrontational topics where you can edit for a while. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That you have now chosen to evade the block and post at the blocking admins talk page [8] is further evidence that you need a break. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted an apology to Guy immediately after being unblocked. It remains my honest opinion that Beeblebrox was attempting to "take the bad dog out and hang him".Mk5384 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12.50.80.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - not smart. Seriously. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was entirely inappropriate on my part.Mk5384 (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[9]. Again, the best thing to do is calm down, walk away for a couple days, and then come back if you can contribute collegially and civilly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it is cool. We'll see who has the last laugh.

This statement, made by me, was made in anger, and inappropriate.Mk5384 (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way you can 'win' this argument if you insist on breaking civility rules. You will get a permentant ban, and will recive little or no sympathy.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, laying down challenges like that is rarely a good idea. Neither is flinging invective at people. I've looked only at behaviour here, not at content - I have no opinion on your original complaint, I do have an opinion on the way you've chosen to pursue it, which is that it is disruptive and shows all the classic signs of climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. If you are smart, which I hope you are, you'll look back on your recent actions and see that you've lost the sense of proportion. This is only a website, after all. You also need to learn that we prefer to handle things by quiet contemplation than by shouting matches. If you want to achieve something then you will be much more successful if you are calm and stick with policies and guidelines, use measured language and stick to what reliable independent sources say rather than arguing the WP:TRUTH of the content itself. I hope that's all clear now. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. If you've got any balls, you'll tell me where to file a complaint against you for blocking me with absolutely no cause. That's the first thing I'll be doing upon returning. Of course, having heard that, you'll probably increase the length of the block, and go right ahead. As I've said, I enjoy a challenge.
I should not have said this. I apologised to Guy after being unblocked.Mk5384 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can file that complaint at WP:ANI, after your new block of one week has expired. Note also that I have revoked your access to this talk page as you are continuing to make confrontational and insulting posts. If you evade this block even one time, I will not hesitate to indefinitely block this account, so please just take the week off and try and get some perspective on these events. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that the escalation of this block by Beeblebrox was an attempt at some form of revenge. The administrator who unblocked me agreed that this was unwarranted.Mk5384 (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I ave balls, and two children to prove it. unblock-en-l at wikimedia.org, {{unblock}} or wait 48 hours and go to WP:ANI, but since it's already under discussion there I don't hold out much hope. Now, have you read and understood the feedback people are giving you above? Or are you going to play the martyr? Guy (Help!) 21:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you're on about here, I see someone who was on an escalating path and needed both a short break and to understand that we're serious about the comments made above by various people. I don't think we should hold the hollering and raging against him, it's normal. If it carries on beyond today then yes it may be indicative of a problem but some anger and frustration is expected under the circumstances. I'm happy to wait and see how he acts when he comes back. I hope we'll all be pleasantly surprised and he will take on board the comments above about how to discuss content issues properly. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to wait. He's been active, been blocked, and his unblock request denied. Take a look at his attitude! Not much hope for such types, and I don't understand why he's being told to cool off, when he should be indef blocked on the spot. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being blocked can be frustrating and cause inappropriate reactions, but we should not be into banninating people just because they throw their toys out of the pram when blocked. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about whether Alexander Imich should be included on the list.

As a frequent contributor on the talk page (more than 10 edits with a last edit in 2010), your thoughts would be appreciated.

The discussion is here

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, as promised I've extended your block to indefinite since you evaded the block. Your access to this talk page through your registered account is restored. You can appeal to ArbCom by following the procedures outlined at WP:BASC. Appealing directly to Jimbo is a notorious waste of time but you could try emailing him. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to play devlis advocate, Perhaps he did not (and does not) know how to appeal to arbcom via email. Yes he's evaded the block, but in all fiarness it was (I hope) just to post an appeal here, it was not meant as a means of genuinly trying to evade the block to edit war (I assume do correct me if I am wrong|).Slatersteven (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did it once, the ip was blocked (not by me). The ip block expired, and he did it again. If he had just heeded the advice to take a few days off in the first place none of this would have happened, yet somehow it's all my fault, and even more mysteriously, I apparently have some sort of conflict of interest here, and Sandstein is apparently not an impartial admin either, since after he denied the last unblock request Mk renewed his calls for an impartial admin to review the case. Nothing is Mk's fault according to his version of events, he was forced into these actions by a conspiracy whose alleged motivations are not at all clear to me although I'm supposed to be part of it. We'll see what yet another admin has to say to this latest request. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know that I did not evade the block. All I did was request an unblock. You restricted my talk page for the sole purpose of forcing me to use a different IP adress to appeal it, so that you could come back and finish the job. I've already showed you that I can evade the block at will, and yet I have chosen not to. When I requested the unblock, I went to great lengths to explain that it was not block evasion, and that it was my only option. It is all your fault because you set me up. Instead of saying, "As much as I don't want him here, I'm not the final authority, and he does have a right to appeal this", you blocked me for requesting an unblock. The block itself is not an issue. I could be editing this very moment if I chose to do so. Maybe the fact that I choose not to should mean something. If being blocked was the only issue, I'd just ignore it and go about my business. The issue is the restoration of my account to good standing. Guy himself said to ignore what I had done; that he understood my frustration. Yet you ignored his advice and made a unilateral decision to extend the block. After you did that, Xeno said that it was unjust to extend the block. Not only did you not rescind it at that point; you didn't even feel compelled to answer what the other admin said in my defence. And then this. As I have repeated ad infinitum, you put me in a situation where I couldn't appeal the block from my talk page, and then extended the block yet again because I had the audacity to not accept your pronouncement as absolute and final. If it was block evasion I was after, what sense would it make for me to appeal the block? You haven't a leg on which to stand here. Mk5384 05:57, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

MK, I am probably the last person you want to hear from right now, but I faced a similar situation as User:Husnock when I was indef banned but allowed to return after discussion and apology. To get out of this situation, here is what I recommend doing:

1. Admit openly that all your actions were improper and give a broad apology to everyone who has commented on this discussion.
2. Voluntarily accept a one month block. During that month, do not make an edit of any kind or contact any user in any way
3. At the end of that month, request an unblock again, also again explaining an apology and a firm declaration that you will abide by the rules of the website.
4. Accept a six month mentorship by an administrator. Do nt engage in any personal attacks, disruptive editing, or uncalled for behavior during that time.

I think you will find that at the end of that time period (7 months), this will have all blown over, most of it will be forgotten, and a lot of the users who have been speaking to you here will have gone on to bigger and better things. Myself as an example, nearly every editor who was deeply involved with my Husnock account is now either off the site or on very good terms with me. So it can be with you too. -OberRanks (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The various escalations of the original block by JzG wasn't appropriate. The reason was asserted to be for the user sounding off on their talk page about the block - and typically we don't extend blocks for this. I've restored the original block length but added 24 hours for the block evasion.

Mk5384, please don't take this as an endorsement of your actions. Please do consider the good-faith advice that has been offered to you and consider modifying your approach to Wikipedia, otherwise I fully expect to see you blocked again in the future - likely indefinitely. –xeno^talk 14:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. If you engage in the kind of attitudes and actions that you were blocked for in the first place you will have only yourself to blame. I have tried to see your side, itsd now down to you to prove that I was not mistaken.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Having seen Mk5384's apology, which has just been brought to my user talk page, I think the message got home and we're all good here. Mk5384, I appreciate your comment, thank you. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There didn't appear to be consensus either way, Black Kite (the straw poll seems evenly divided). I'm not sure a block was warranted here. See also [10] –xeno^talk 14:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the point. The content is irrelevant, the persistent back-and-forth edit warring is. If the user posts an unblock request saying that he will not touch the article without gaining a proper consensus one way the other, then any admin may unblock. (Actually,it might be better to lock the article again as well, since Mk5384 clearly can't leave it alone). Black Kite 14:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was no back-and-forth, this was 1 edit after the article was unprotected. And Mk5384 already stated they didn't plan to re-instate it if they were reverted. I think this was hasty. –xeno^talk 14:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • See my comment beneath the unblock request. Black Kite 14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|There was nothing disruptive about that edit. I have stated again and again that there will be no edit war here. I also went on the talk page of the admin who protected the article and asked if I would be blocked if I returned the name to the infobox. He said no, and reiterated that the protection of the article was not an endorsement of that version. I did not add the name again and again, and I said numerous times that I wouldn't. One edit does not constitute disruptive editing.}}

• One edit doesn't. One edit after many previous ones does. Look - I'll quite happily unblock here, if you promise to leave the article alone until the dispute resolution process and discussion have run their full course. Fair? Black Kite 14:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See their comment at my talk page "There is no consensus for either version, although the tide does appear to be turning against mine. I plan to return it once. Then when I am reverted, which I almost certainly will be, I will seek formal mediation" [emph. added]. This seems to be within the spirit of BRD, making a bold edit to try and establish a new consensus. –xeno^talk 14:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I've already promised that, but if you want me to promise again, fine. I promise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk5384 (talk • contribs)

You shouldn't have done it at all, though. However, WP:AGF and all that...

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): User promises to refrain from any further EW on the relevant page Request handled by: Black Kite Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thank you. You'll see that I did not dissuade them from making the single edit - my thought was that when a discussion has stalemated, sometimes a (single!) bold edit to try and see if it will stick is an appropriate step forward. YMMV? –xeno^talk 14:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should now (instead of reverting to 'Nigger Jack') seek mediation if your revert is reveted. in fact it might mbe best if its sought anyway the debate is getting a bit heated.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still blocked. I'm not sure if it just takes time for the unblock to go through, or if there's something else going on.

Sorry, my fault - I fixed the autoblock, but it looks like the actual unblock didn't go through, either because of a glitch or a misclick by me. You should be OK now. Black Kite 15:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Mk5384 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A mediation request has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John J. Pershing. It will be necessary for you to visit the page and sign your agreement to accept mediation in this section. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John J. Pershing. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Don't worry. The hidden comment is meant to give pause to a recurring replacement of "trombonist" by something inaccurate and unfunny, except in the minds of some young male editors. If you care to skim the history for reversions, you will find plenty like this. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Hard to believe I didn't figure that one out on my own. Happy Easter!Mk5384 (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:John J. Pershing, you wrote "Sorry, but I'm having a tough time with that one. It seems that the only reason that the nicknames are a click away, rather that right there, is to make the infobox appear less offensive."

I think we all understand that if you removed them from the infobox, that would be your motivation. We are not you. This is not about you. It is not about us. It is about writing an encyclopedia. Please focus on the content, not on the motivations of other editors.

This repeated focus on the motivations of others is disruptive. Please stop.- Sinneed 17:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to respond (no need), you may safely do so here, as I have watched the page. You are, of course, welcome on my talk page as well.- Sinneed 17:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand. It has been my stated position that to remove it because it is offensive or controversial is unacceptable. You keep talking about my speculating about the motivations of other editors. OberRanks, not far above your comment, talks about leaving it out because it "removes the shock value". Why do you think that I'm speculating about other editors when they've clearly stated their reasons?Mk5384 (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, you wrote:

I just want to go a bit further to clarify, as there seems to be a misunderstanding between us. I am not "speculating" about the motivations of editors. I am just going by what they have written. Of those that are opposed to displaying the nickname in the infobox, there appear to be two camps. One does not wanted it included because it creates undue weight, with which I disagree. The other does not want it included because it is offensive, with which policy seems to disagree. I'm just trying to clarify which debate we're having.Mk5384 (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Then, perhaps stop talking about it entirely, since it is not an issue.

"Why do you think that I'm speculating about other editors when they've clearly stated their reasons?" - No, they haven't, you have. If something doesn't belong, but does no harm, many editors will just let it go, rather than have to discuss it. But this does harm.- Sinneed 01:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my breaking back onto your talk page; we've worked some things out so I thought you wouldnt mind. Good sir, having been around the block a few times on this site, I can tell you that the conversation above appears to have the intent of baiting you to say or do something inappropriate. I don't know what this editors motivations are, but the talk page of the article has negative comments directed to both sides of the debate as well as several vague statements that is still some kind of edit war going on when in fact the complete opposite is true. I would ignore this and any future threads. This looks like nothing but trouble and, like I said, the editor appears to be trying to provoke you. -OberRanks (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I can tell you that the conversation above appears to have the intent of baiting you" - is untrue and inappropriate.- Sinneed 16:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, you wrote: "I am truly at a loss to understand what you're saying. Again, I am not speculating, but going by what others are saying. You seem to feel that this is a taboo subject of discussion, and I don't get it.Mk5384 (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

I have been as clear as I know how, and am sorry my remarks have proven unhelpful. All the best, and happy editing.- Sinneed 16:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, you wrote: "As much as I would just like to forget about all of this, the debate about the Pershing article seems far from over, so I would again, like to attempt to clear this up. I have gone out of my way to be anything but disruptive. Since the article was unprotected, I have made a grand total of 1 edit (or 3 including the 2 to correct punctuation), and on the talk page I have been nothing but civil. I have taken statements made by other editors, and have agreed or disagreed with them, whilst giving my reasons why. Now if you disagree with something I have said on the talk page, then by all means, disagree with me. But please stop telling me what I am and am not allowed to say. I hope that this is now resolved between the two of us. And likewise, all the best, and happy editing.Mk5384 (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)"

As I have not started doing so, I cannot stop telling you what you are or are not allowed to say. In any event, I am moving on, and do not plan to discuss this any further, as it seems unproductive. I am willing to continue the conversation if you wish, however.- Sinneed 19:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the issue of the addition of Sealand to List of current heads of state and government‎ has flared up again and I'm having to deal with it on the talk page in defending it's inclusion. Would you like to help with your input in this? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well what you would genrally have to do if you want to add something in alphabetically in that table is that you place it inbetween the preceeding and succeeding additions, like this (look at it from edit view as it won't make sense otherwise):

|- | Sealand

|colspan=2|

I hope this helps. 06:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

JasarDaConqueror (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Hey i noticed your comments on the Montreal Screwjob discussion page. I decided since nobody except someone with no account objected to what you said. I would atleast change the page a little to make it fair. I just wanted to tell you because I thought you would like to know. I only changed a few words at the top of the first paragraph and added something to the second one. If your not bothered thats fine but I thought since you were fighting for and nothing was even said, I might aswell tell you.[reply]

Yeah; to be honest with you, with so much else going on, that totally slipped my mind. No one had responded to my post on the talk page for quite a while, and I forgot all about it. Thanks, good job. All the bestMk5384 (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

I appreciate your apologies. Salut, be well. --IANVS (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the proposed deletion tag and will nominate it for WP:AFD so others can come to consensus (it'll take me a few hours to get around to it as I'm only paying a flying visit right now). How's that? (I love that name, btw). Plutonium27 (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Whilst I had at first removed it, I put it back, as the article may, in fact, technically not meet the criteria for inclusion. I didn't want to let my opinion of notability stand in the way of regulations. I do think that what you have proposed is best. Incidentally, amongst the other band members, his is one of the tamer names (i.e. Sickie Wifebeater, Sneaky Spermshooter, ect.).Mk5384 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't disagree with your change. Thanks for letting me know. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Take care. Mk5384 (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I haven't read up on the 80s all that much. I don't pay study WWE's history all that much anymore. I read more up on indy promotions these days. 80s in general are hard to get information on so besides magazines and bios, I'm not sure.--WillC 07:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't a dark match at WrestleMania III. There were so many matches, you might be confusing one of the matches on the undercard as a dark match. RaaGgio (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm thouroughly familiar with the card in its entirety. The only other possibility of which I can think, is that I may be confusing it with WrestleMania VI. I distinctly remember seeing the still footage of the participants coming to the ring in their motorised carts. I know that this method was used in Wrestlemania VI, as well, so I may be confusing the two. Was there a dark match at WrestleMania VI?Mk5384 (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was, in fact, Wrestlemania VI. The reason I couldn't figure it out all of this time was that it didn't happen. I feel like quite a schmuck. Thanks to everyone who tried to help me!Mk5384 (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put the notability tag on the article because the current version, as written, doesn't even make a claim of notability or contain any references at all. It's not really relevant that he's been deemed notable in the past — that determination was based on the version of the article that existed at that time, not the version of the article that exists now.

The notability tag is a judgment on the current quality of the article as written, not on the worthiness of the topic in principle — we can't completely strip all of an article's references and all of its actual notability claims, and still consider the resulting version of the article to meet our notability guidelines just because it did in the past, if the version that exists right now doesn't make a legitimate and referenced notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I think a lot of people don't fully understand that the notability tag is first and foremost about the quality of the article; believe me, it's a lot easier than some people would think to write a deletable article about a potentially notable topic. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qawi changed his name from Dwight Braxton to Dwight Muhammad Qawi several years before his first fight with Holyfield. I have included a link to a fight poster from the first Qawi-Holyfield fight in which Qawi's name appears as Dwight Muhammad Qawi. I have also included another link to the February 16, 1983 issue of Sports Illustrated, which states that he changed his name shortly after his rematch with Matthew Saad Muhammad. The article states that he had his first fight under the name Dwight Muhammad Qawi when he knocked out Johnny Davis. That fight was on November 11, 1982. Semaj27119 talk 19:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Qawi-Holyfield Fight Poster
• Qawi's first fight with new name

No problem. Take care. Semaj27119 talk 20:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop what you're doing at the Pershing talk page; at least until Aunt E has a chance to respond. An alternative would be posting to the Admin Noticeboard and asking an administrative to remove the comments for you. Doing it yourself is edit warring on the article talk page which is a big no-no. Sorry as well for the SP business with Xeno. Its a separate issue from the talk page, though, we should not get them mixed together for everyone's sake. -OberRanks (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not edit warring. It does not belong. She went on the Pershing talk page to bolster support for another article, which is a big no-no. You have said that you will leave it to her. Please do so, and please stop putting it back.Mk5384 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to let the admins sort this out since you are edit warring on a talk page. I've asked them to look into it: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_Warring_on_Talk:John_J._Pershing. -OberRanks (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At ANI, this was quickly dismissed as nonsense.Mk5384 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent personal attacks ("go kiss Usama bin Laden's ass") as well as misrepresenting other editor's views has been reported here. You seemed to be doing well for a while, sorry it came to this. -OberRanks (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are clueless, as usual. It's no wonder that you say you've received threats per your actions here. Please get a life.Mk5384 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [11], is pushing it a bit don't you think? Just because another editor refuses to type the "word", doesn't mean you have to correct them. By now everyone seeing the article knows what is meant. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. What I do think is that I'm done with all of this. Enjoy your whitewashed, vanilla John Pershing article to your hearts' content.Mk5384 (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing#RFC about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, –xeno^talk 15:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely exonorated of deliberately false charges.Mk5384 (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the sock investigation page, you posted: "After that, please explain what punitive actions will be taken against those who falsely accused me." - that one I can answer, just as an ordinary user: the WP community does not take punitive action at all. Actions taken are to prevent abuse, damage, etc. Thus, unless someone is banned, they can come back if they convince the community or its representatives that the unacceptable behaviour won't be repeated. Even in the case of a ban, the community may accept an editor's return.- Sinneed 18:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why he would want punishment for someone doing what he apparently wanted, even begged for. Mk, do not say things if you don't really mean them. Auntie E. (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop twisting my words. Whilst I did indeed call for an immediate investigation to clear my name, I also called for those who falsely accused me (you and OberRanks) to be summarily punished. I didn't say anything I didn't mean, and I find it hard to believe that you are as naive as you pretend to be. Furthermore, the fact that you have chosen not to apologise, (I knew OberRanks never would, but thought that you, perhaps, had some dignity) but rather to come here and continue your baseless attacks is simply reprehensible. Imagine the shame you must feel.Mk5384 (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly, how many times are there going to be attempts to ban this user? I agree that your (Mk5384) language is sometime imoderate I also think that this is begining to look a lot like persecution. Perhaps if you (Auntie E) and OberRanks were to appoligise for what was a baseless accusation then maybe the heat would die down a little (after all your were wrong). In addition perhaps if you (Mk5384) were to assume good faith it might illicite an appology.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do AGF in almost all cases. However, I can no longer AGF with these two. As far as OberRanks, he made up no fewer than 12 lies to attempt to hinder me; one of them being the fact that you didn't support Father Goose's proposal. (And, here, OR lied again, and said that it was my proposal.) And that's just the tip of the iceberg. As for Auntie, the fact that she has chosen not to apologise (I knew OberRanks never would) after being proven dead wrong, tells me all I need to know. What I really don't appreciate, is the portrayal as the lone dissenter on the Nigger Jack issue, even though there are numerous users who support me. In any case, Steve, thanks for your support. I'm glad that you can see this witch hunt for what it is. (Do realize, that as you have supported me, you may now very well be accused of being a sock.) All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have to pull you up on one point. I did not say there was a witch hunt. I said this is begining to look a lot like one. I do not beleve such is the case, but I do beleve that its tacking very close to the wind. I belive that all users involved (but especialy the accusers) need to take a step back before this tips over into victimisation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"to be summarily punished" and " I wonder why no one was held accountable for falsely accusing me." - wp:STICK. There are not punishments. The are blocks and such to protect the encyclopedia and the community. These are not punishments: they simply may prevent someone from editing. - Sinneed 17:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then they should have been blocked to prevent them from doing it again. Punative, preventitive, or whatever you want to call it, these two users were permitted to falsely accuse me without fear of consequences. If I were to go to the police, and say, "Sineed is an axe murderer", when you've never killed anyone with an axe, I would be in big trouble. If punishment was, as you say, not in order, they should have been censured, or at the very least, made to account fo themselves. The only one who was punished was I, as I was forced to defend myself against deliberately false allegations, as retribution for daring to disagree.Mk5384 (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provide proof that they deliberately brought allegations that they knew to be false against you. To use your axe murderer analogy, if you went to the police and said you thought someone was an axe murderer because you really thought they were an ax murderer, and the police thought there was enough credible evidence to investigate, then it wasn't a false allegation, just an incorrect one if it turned out they were not indeed an ax murderer. Unless you can prove it, it would probably be a good idea to just drop the matter per WP:STICK as advised above. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really have some nerve, with this "stick" shit. I am responding to posts put on my talk page. Someone posts something here. I reply. Somehow that turns into a stick issue. If a am, in fact, wielding a stick, then it is with which to defend myself; not to beat the proverbial expired horse. This whole "stick" thing is just a new approach to acheive the desired result, now that the SPI has cleared me.Mk5384 (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not nerve, just friendly advice. I've seen people push issues like this here on WP before, and it usually ends up at ANI, and if you push there, you get blocked. I don't want to see you blocked because I want the issue at Black Jack resolved, and if your unable to participate for a week, you wont be able too, which when you come back you will just keep pursuing it. I mean no disrespect, I just think it's in the best interest of that discussion for you to be involved in its resolution. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally unrelated to any of the recent happenings. I've noticed you sometimes reply by staying on the same line as the person to whom you are replying and adding a <br/> or two (e.g.). Is there a particular reason? This makes it harder to follow in the wikitext.

Note that if you are replying to a bulleted or numbered point, you can still use the same kind of indenting method as usual with :'s (examples below). Hope this helps! –xeno^talk 20:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Xeno writes something
*:Mk5384 replies

*Xeno writes something
**Mk5384 replies, similarly bulleted rather than indented

*Xeno again
:*A different way, but same effect.

#Xeno wrote a numbered statement
#:Mk5384 replied.
#::Someone else
#:::Mk5384 again.

• Xeno writes something

  Mk5384 replies

• Xeno writes something
  • Mk5384 replies, similarly bulleted rather than indented

• Xeno again

• A different way, but same effect.

1. Xeno wrote a numbered statement

   Mk5384 replied.

   Someone else

   Mk5384 again.

Sorry. I'll try to remember that. All the while I thought I was doing it correctly, so I'm glad you pointed it out. I'm not the most computer savvy person, although I'm constantly attempting to learn more.Mk5384 (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! –xeno^talk 14:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion concerning you is on the page. Briefly Verbose (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MK should have been told. Meanwhile, MK should note that the above user is a sock of the sock that was trying to get MK in trouble the other day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sock is now in the fridge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been archived, but still appears to be open.Slatersteven (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could safely let it die as it's now archived. It can always be unarchived if something new develops, but I'd rather just let it go away and let everyone involved just go about their business as they seem to be doing. Less dramuz the better. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not still open: the topic ban proposal didn't carry. But I would suggest to Mk5384 that they might find it worthwhile to make a graceful exit from the debate on their own accord. –xeno^talk 21:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've more or less done that.Mk5384 (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to not repsond to the latest raising of the issue of Nigger Jack.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Beyond My Ken has taken one of the many biographies of Pershing, and decided that it will stand as the only authoritative text. I was mildly amused by the statement that it "permanently puts the issue to rest". Whilst users have been now saying that for months, these same users always want to jump right back into the fray. I hope you can see why I have decided, at least for the time being, to steer clear of it.Mk5384 (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you've made your point. Please go to the article's talk page if you have a problem with anything in there. Please don't simply keep deleting material you don't agree with, material that is cited to reliable publications, and then engage in edit warring when I revert to the stable version of the article. I have demonstrated on my talk page that every edit you made was incorrect, but if you won't listen to reason then you'll just end up getting blocked for disruptive editing, and nobody wants that. Parrot of Doom 18:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have demonstrated nothing, and I have gone to the talk page. I realise that you think that this is your article, and I have no right to come and mess with it, but it's downright atrocious to have a featured article filled with so much inaccuracy.Mk5384 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately with the ownership accusations, why on earth do people always come up with this bollocks? You can make whatever edits you like so long as they improve the article, but when you remove information cited from a reliable source, for no other reason than your personal opinion, you're going to create strife. You haven't demonstrated with any reliable sources why your edits are correct. What a waste of time. Parrot of Doom 19:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reported for edit warring here Parrot of Doom 19:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I'm not the first, so I'm not so sure it is bollocks. What I did was remove opinion that does not belong there.Mk5384 (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw the request for help at WikiProject albums, but upon looking at the linked discussions, I don't think it would do much good for anyone to try to help out. It's just become a mud-slinging free-for-all. As a private vote of support, I can say that I was a regular watcher of every Pink Floyd related article from summer 2008 to early 2009. During that time, the Pink Floyd article's talk page got a lot of traffic. There were many regulars on the talk page, and we got a lot of contructive things done, though a lot of the work was in asserting the decisions that we had agreed upon. It was almost a daily occurence that someone would come in and try to change things such as whether the group were considered current or defunct ("Pink Floyd is..." vs. "Pink Floyd was..." in the opening sentence), what year they formed, etc. All of these things were discussed and re-discussed, and we came up with good answers to just about everything, and had to re-defend our decisions whenever someone new would come in and change the article. That doesn't mean we were opposed to change. If someone came in with a new point of view, they often convinced us that it should change, or made us look at the situation and come up with better reasons for what we had decided. But for the most part, we had a feeling that the article had reached a point of stability. There were few questions we hadn't considered, and we had come up with good answers for most questions. We did have some historical questions that couldn't be answered (for example, where the various sections of Atom Heart Mother begin and end, as several editions of the album seem to give different answers).

Although I was watching all Pink Floyd articles, it got to the point where I had to take Dark Side of the Moon off my watchlist, because another user (whom you're battling with now) wanted to do an enormous overhaul without help from any of the regulars. In order to resist any efforts to help with or oversee his work, he insisted on making hundreds of changes each day, over a period of at least three weeks. It was impossible to keep track of what he was changing. We asked him to prepare his changes in a user sandbox page and have us look at it when he was done, but he refused, and basically said he didn't want his work reviewed. I should point out that many of us felt there was nothing wrong with his work; he was just going about it the wrong way, and refusing to be co-operative. It was an "ownership" problem, but not the usual one where an editor reverts any changes made by others, it was more of a case of unwillingness to work with the existing group, and to make it impossible for us to watch the article for vandalism and other changes by other editors that were mixed in with his hundreds of edits per day. When he finally finished his task on that article, he started doing the same with other Pink Floyd albums, and the main Pink Floyd article, using the same working methods. At that time, I gave up and took all Pink Floyd articles off my watchlist (though I still watch the discography page). A few months later, I looked at the Pink Floyd talk page, and found it to be a ghost town. All the regular watchers and maintainers had left. It looks like it's still in that state.

Regarding the question of whether More and Obscured By Clouds should be separated in the discography article and chronology chain, this was one of the many policies we had decided upon. We determined that while separating soundtracks was necessary for other artists, because their soundtrack work does not fit in with their regular albums (musically, thematically, or in terms of fitting recording and release date into a chronology with other albums), no such problems existed for including these two albums with the group's studio work. When Mr. Doom says "at some point a decision was made as to the numbering of these albums, and nobody has really questioned that", the problem is that they were discussed before he joined as a regular Pink Floyd editor. This issue, and others like it, certainly were questioned and answered quite thoroughly on numerous occasions. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to make that comment. I must ask, if this user was so disruptive to these articles, why was nothing done to stop him?Mk5384 (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't fit any of the common criteria for defining "disruption", and I would not use that term myself. I (and others) never got into a big fight with Doom over this, I just couldn't watch the articles anymore. The biggest shame is that everyone who had been watching those articles for a long time, all gave up. We probably shouldn't have. But the tone of the discussions at that time had none of the incivility that seems to be happening recently. I have no suggestions about what can be done, except to say that when being involved in discussions, try to refrain from participating in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Treat your posts as though you will have to answer for everything you've said, at some future time. I don't know if I'd be able to contain myself if I were to become involved, which is why I'm declining to join those discussions at this time. If you want me to reply regarding a certain point, I can do that, but what I've said above is about things that were decided years ago, and may not be relevant if there has been more recent discussion. Actually, I will go ahead and repeat a small part of what I've said on one of the talk pages. (While I was writing this, a notice just appeared on my talk page from Mr. Doom, objecting to my previous reply above. Well, I'm sorry, but that's the way it was, and I believe I've recalled the situation accurately.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parrot is good people. Even though it got heated, in the long run, we both had the common goal of improving things. We probably both jumped the gun. All good.Mk5384 (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Parrot of Doom 14:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For edit warring, especially at The Wall, you are blocked for two weeks. I suspect this will be the last block placed on your account that is not indefinite. –xeno^talk 15:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:NOTTHEM; I make no comment on the content issue - you are blocked for edit warring. Remember: There is no deadline. –xeno^talk 15:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't actually addressed your behaviour. –xeno^talk 15:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk5384, that's nonsense. I've tried several times to give you pointers as to how you can avoid this incessant conflict, the last time I blocked you we parted on what seemed to me to be amicable terms, and I'm a Pink Floyd fan. I can't see what conflict exists here. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how being a Pink Floyd fan is germane, but kudos on your good taste in music. I too, thought that we had parted on amicable terms. Comments you have made since (i.e. my post was "absolute irredeemable bullshit"), as well as your call to arms to have me topic banned lead me to rethink that.Mk5384 (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|The grounds for unblocking are that I did not "edit war". I understand this whole NOTTHEM thing, but at the same time, the behaviour of another user is directly germane here. I discussed, and received support for, all changes I made on the appropriate talk pages. I even went to WP:ALBUM, as requested, and got confirmation there. Parrot Of Doom just continued to return, and change things back the way they wanted it ad infinitum. The fact that other users have had the same complaint with this user involving "ownership" of all Pink Floyd articles should come into play here.}}

I would support this unblock request. It seems he did almost everything correctly -- talk page discussion, wikiproject discussion -- except stopping when he was edit warred against. Shall we call it "time served"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is Mk5384's note at Talk:The_Wall/Archive2#changes - but no back/forth discussion there or at the WikiProject talk page on the rock opera vs. concept album dispute. (The block was mostly for The Wall, not The Final Cut)

If you've reviewed the totality of the situation and feel that the block has served its purpose and Mk5384 will edit harmoniously going forward, I won't object to you lifting the block. But first, please also review the relevant ANI thread. –xeno^talk 15:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno, please note that Sarek is not an admin, and can not unblock me. I do appreciate their support, indeed. The reason there was no "back and forth" on the talk page at The Wall, is that Parrot refused to adress it on the talk page, but rather continued to try to force the bogus info into the article again, and again. I realise that this is supposed to be about me and not them, but the reality of this situation is, it is about them, and there's much to support that.Mk5384 (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's an admin without his tools [13]. –xeno^talk 16:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno, see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Pink Floyd and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd#Studio albums. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but those aren't about the rock opera vs. concept album disagreement, which is the main impetus for this block. –xeno^talk 16:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): The edit warring is still unacceptable, but based on a more complete review of the situation I am reducing the block to 'time served'. Please do keep in mind my previous comments to you about editing in a harmonious fashion; I expect that further disharmonious editing will result in your account receiving a very lengthy or indefinite block. Request handled by: –xenotalk Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thank you Xeno; thank you Sarek, for your support. (And sorry for my mistake-I thought I read you say on your talk page that you're no longer an admin.) I don't want to go too much into this now, as I really need a breather at this point. I would, however, like to point out that, as now can be seen, Parrot was repeatedly inserting false information, not supported by the source used. That's why I continued to remove it. I know that Xeno is an admin of good character, but I still can't understand how I was blocked, whilst Parrot continued to cause the damage, and then waltzed away. Mk5384 (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well he's not technically an admin - he's an admin who relinquished his tools while still in good favour (so he can pick them up at any time, and I just tried to get him to do so, but he refused =). As far as Parrot, please see my comments at the ANI thread. –xeno^talk 17:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sums it up pretty well. I'm not an admin, but people are going to react to me like I am one. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks again!Mk5384 (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a 72-hour protection.—Kww(talk) 14:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the protection log, and, if you attempt to edit it, the expiration date comes up. I'll add the big ugly "expiry" banner if you really want.—Kww(talk) 14:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've had the list sitting in my userspace for a while, finally got around to making it a real article. Thank you for your edit. — jwillbur 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I hope you realize that a lot of stations include additional buildings including freight houses, as well as water towers, roundhouses, control towers, etcetera. Hell, if you look at this link on Patchogue (LIRR station), you'll find that it had more structures than the article even covers. ----DanTD (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but most SEPTA stations are old Pennsylvania Railroad and Reading Railroad stations, so it shouldn't be a surprise that a lot of them have features like this in their histories. Sorry, I can't really give you any info on Alaska. I'm planning a vacation myself this June, and it'll involve taking some pics of some Amtrak stations along the east coast, LIRR stations, and possibly even some SEPTA ones. Good luck on your own vacation. ----DanTD (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The old article is here. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!!Mk5384 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored Marooned on the grounds that a Grammy is a significant award (per WP:NSONGS). I await an alternative 'common sense' view of Grammys. I do think that some solid references for these song articles would be a good idea. Occuli (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit... (Template removed, per WP:DTTR)

Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was not an attack. You moved my post to a less conspicous place in the text, which you had absolutely no right to do. Also, something along the lines of, "You're a shithead", would be an attack. "Let's cut the shit, huh?", is not an attack, and your pretending that it is will not turn it into one.Mk5384 (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at your talk page, I realise that nominating AfD's is a hobby of yours. Makes more sense now.Mk5384 (talk) 08:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like quite a legitimate statement by Mk5384. Even the most uptight of editors should be able to realise it wasn't a personal attack. Nev1 (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it wasn't. This user's raison d'etre at Wikipedia is deleting articles (seems counterproductive), and as this one is going to result in a snowball keep, they're grasping at straws.Mk5384 (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MK, the Thoroughbred and Standardbred are real horse breeds, these are not generic terms. Thoroughbred, in fact, is a featured article and this whole issue was hotly discussed and resolved during the FA review. As I explained on my talk page, WPEQ consensus across our hundreds of horse breed articles is that all breed names are proper nouns and thus capitalized. The Thoroughbred is so very much a "real" breed that people confuse the term "thoroughbred" with purebred to the point that some dictionaries list them as synonyms. However, for horsemen, the only true "Thoroughbred" is the Thoroughbred breed. For example, if someone says their horse is a "Thoroughbred Arabian," we assume they mean a crossbred Anglo-Arabian, not a purebred Arabian. So please leave the capitalization of these breeds alone unless you want to take on all 350-400 breed articles in the process. Montanabw^(talk) 18:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are using the term in a way that is confusing. The public, indeed, understands "thoroughbred" to be "purebred". You will rarely find the word capitalised in any respected publication about thoroughbreds. And no, I don't wish to take on 350-400 articles, but if they were incorrect, as this one is, I certainly would.Mk5384 (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this thread at WP:AN3. Style questions, though they appear trivial, can lead to extremely nasty edit wars. On your talk page, there is no sign that you realize how serious this is. If you wish to avoid a block I suggest that you respond at WP:AN3 and explain how you intend to reach consensus on this. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it's comedic, rather than serious.Mk5384 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the self-revert. For extra credit, can you undo your personal attack at Montanabw's page? EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the self-revert before the ANI report, because I felt it was the right thing to do-no other reason. Extra credit? Have you lost your mind? I didn't make any attacks. If you're referring to the fact that I called him an asshole after he threatened to report me for "vandalism", because he disagreed with my edits, and then put a template on the page of an editor with almost 4,000 edits, suggesting that I "read the welcome page to learn about editing", and that I "use the sandbox for 'test edits"; that's assholish behaviour.Mk5384 (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user said himself, "that dictionaries consider 'thoroughbred', and 'purebred' to be synonyms. However, for true horsemen, ect., ect." I.e. his knoweledge as a horseman supercedes the dictionary. The fact is, that these terms are not to be capitalised, and there is plenty of reliable sources to prove that. However, as I don't have those sources in front of me at the moment, I figured it didn't make much sense to continue to revert until I do. That is the reason I reverted myself.Mk5384 (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was, of course, dismissed.Mk5384 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Webster, when used in reference to horses it's capitalized:[14] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a general-use term, it is not necessarily capitalized. However, the focus of the article Thoroughbred is the Thoroughbred horse. And by the way, to show how much attention I pay to detail, I didn't know until today that it's supposed to be capitalized when referring to the Thoroughbred race horse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point I was trying to make, Bugs. It's not capitalised in general use.Mk5384 (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about general use - it's about the specific use of the Thoroughbred horse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And as someone who's spent his entire life around horses, I can tell you that "thoroughbred" most often means "thoroughbred", and not "Thoroughbred". "Siamese cat" is capitalised, whilst "house cat" is not. You made one of the best points that I saw during the "Genesis Creation myth" debate; that whilst "myth" was technically correct, it was misleading, as the public generally understands myth to mean false. Extremely different scenario; exact same analogy. "Thoroughbred", in most cases, including racehorses, is referring to a purebred horse, and not a specific breed. It is not supposed to be capitalised when referring to a thoroughbred racehorse (or a standardbred), because, in the racing industry, this simply refers to whether or not a horse is purebred. Most of our readers are not horse breeders. The article mentions "thoroughbred" once, and "Thoroughbred" about 12 times. It should be the other way around. But in any case, capitalised or not, they're just as tasty.Mk5384 (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually any book on the topic of horse breeds will explain that it is incorrect terminology to say "thoroughbred" to refer to a purebred horse. Just to add additional capitalization examples to those in the Thoroughbred article, see Extension office, U Kentucky, USA Jockey Club, Alabama cooperative extension service and International Museum of the Horse at Kentucky Horse Park. Montanabw^(talk) 03:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of provocation (if any), and regardless of the number of your edits, edits such as this one are unacceptable. Please be more civil and collegial going forward, it would be appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At ANI, it was ruled, "no violation". Not, "no action taken". He deserved what I said to him.Mk5384 (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that this user was a woman. I would not have used such coarse language, had I known that. Whilst that doesn't excuse this user's actions, I perhaps should have considered that possibility.Mk5384 (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MK5384, I would advise you to take this matter seriously, and to avoid using "it's someone else's fault" as a defense. Didn't work for my kids, won't work for you. Ditto "Board X did not impose a penalty" or whatever. (much less "I didn't know that user was female".. that won't fly either) This is about your behavior, not anyone else's. Focus on that, take feedback on board and improve. ++Lar: t/c 04:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I wasn't offering any defence, as I did nothing wrong. "This isn't about someone else-it's about you", is something commonly said by those who have done wrong, and have no excuse. It's an attempt to take the focus off of their own inexcusable behaviour, and it's extremely childish. Please don't get confused by the , "I didn't know the user was female" comment. She was every bit as in the wrong as she would have been if she were a man. Had I known that she was female, I would have told her that she was wrong in less coarse language-that's all.Mk5384

A 3RR report is not an ANI report, I deliberately chose to report it under the lesser standard to avoid the long drawn-out process, even though I see that Mk has been previously blocked for disruptive editing three times just since March. Mk's edits were against longstanding WPEQ consensus on the issue and attempts to explain this were met with hostility, 2 or 3 reverts, and a threatening tone. I welcome admin review of my comments on this issue. I templated with a low-level template to simply emphasize that such edits were not appropriate. Ironically, Mk's edits were not originally to the Thoroughbred article, they were removing capitalization from the Standardbred and other Standardbred-related articles such as Hambletonian 10. He argued there that the Standardbred and Thoroughbred were "types" of horses, not breeds, when the citations clearly show they are unique breeds with their own closed stud book. There is NO question that Standardbred is a synonym for anything other than the breed of horse. And as far as my gender goes, it is irrelevant, no one warrants use of the vulgarity and tone Mk used in this context. This is a mere capitalization dispute that is rapidly escalating and I for one wish it to end. Montanabw^(talk) 02:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Closing this issue with a self-inflicted trout slap!!Mk5384 (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm advising you I have notified previous administrators who have dealt with your issues that we again appear to have yet another situation [15]. Regards to your talk page, I am only posting this as a required notification and not to break any previous imposed request to avoid posting on your page. Thank you. -OberRanks (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have some toy soldiers to play with, or something?Mk5384

• FYI Mk5384, I have offered to certify an RFC/U [16] as I feel that outside community input may help in this matter. By the same token, if you wish to prepare an RFC/U, I will certify that as well. –xeno^talk 12:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know that I have the highest respect for you Xeno. However, if the RFC was started by OberRanks, I wouldn't even read it. Mk5384

This edit is unacceptable. You were counseled to rethink your approach. Take some time and reflect if you're cut out for editing here or not. ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you are cut out for editing here. Instead of making productive contributions yourself, you have chosen to block a user, who, himself, could be making productive contributions. Seems counterproductive, particularily in the face of responding to an editor who was as egregiously out of line as can be. As far as "taking some time to reflect", it's not necessary. I will always be me. If you block me for 55 years, I will never not be me. I will always apologise to someone I've wronged, and I will never apologise to someone who's wronged me. I do, at least now understand why you blocked me. After seeing your user page, and your obsession with things like LEGOS, and toy trains, the "toy soldiers" comment must have really hit home with you. Your actions are perfidious. Whilst the majority of admins here are decent people, deserving of their positions, it's the handful of corrupt ones, like you, that give the entire encyclopaedia a bad name.Mk5384

Lar was about 30 seconds ahead of me on that one. Doubleplusungood edit there... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek, you know I'm quite fond of you, but are you aware of the things that OberRanks has done? Have you reviewed the comments he has made about me on his talk page. And are you aware of the conversations that Xeno and I have had about his myraid lies, and his continuous unacceptable behaviour?Mk5384

"This user has been warned about stalking me and lying about me, numerous times in the past". Perhaps you can provide the edit diffs to these warnings? Or any edit diff where you can show I deliberately told a lie about you to an administrator and was later admonished for it? Also "Have you reviewed the comments he has made about me on his talk page" - what comments are you referring to? Can you list, with diffs as evidence, any comment where I personally attacked you? And, just in case you choose to bring up this one (which didn't even mention your name) [17], please see my reply to Xeno [18]. I personally don't think you have a leg to stand on here. -OberRanks (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of that will be dealt with at ANI. In the meanwhile, you are not welcome on my talk page.Mk5384

My biggest concern with this block, at the moment, is having to wait 55 hours to file at ANI against OberRanks. If my unblock request is, in fact denied, then I do request permission to edit from a different IP adress for the sole purpose of filing the charges that I was advised to file against him some time ago.Mk5384

See note in unblock decline (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I chose to act like a man, instead of a candy ass. That's why I didn't go to ANI earlier. I said nothing about editing anonymously. If I do decide to do that, I will clearly state who I am, what I'm doing, and why I need to use that method of editing. WP:EVADE would not apply. (Although I'm sure someone would try to make it apply.) Please note that I was not looking for anything to excuse my actions, as I did nothing wrong. None of my edits were "improper".Mk5384

After much consideration, I have decided to honor this block. I will be in Atlantic City for the better part of the next 2 days. I therefore, have little desire, let alone need, to edit. However, this had to be weighed alongside the fact that the block is unjust, and as such, I consider myself under no obligation to follow it. Please do not take the fact that I have chosen to honor the block to mean that I agree with it, or that I am in any way, unable to evade it. It just happened to work out. My behaviour will not change as a result of this block, as there was nothing wrong with it in the first place. If anything, I would think an unjustly blocked user would come back even angrier. Oh well. Like I said, I'll be out of town, so no harm, no foul, I guess.They say to find a silver lining in everything. If I can help Lar bolster his self-esteem by agreeing to this block, then OK! Mk5384

Considering that I have just read the AFD for Breathe, be happy you were not blocked for disruption - that has to be the absolute worst series of interactions by one single person on an AfD that I have seen. You made your point, and became abusive to others with a different point of view. Be happy with only 55hrs, and I clearly WILL block you for WP:EVADE, as already warned. Enjoy your trip. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you read the AfD and what you took away was that Mk5384 was being disruptive? Nev1 (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. Were it not for WP:INVOLVED, I would have considered acting on that. He certainly behaved poorly at the AFD, but I'm not sure he crossed the line into disruptive editing. He failed to keep focus on the discussion, and instead spent the time dealing with the motivations of other editors, which is what makes AFDs fail to achieve consensus.—Kww(talk) 16:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you wouldn't do something as foolish as to block someone you're in a dispute with. But where were you when John was being by far the most disruptive person at the AfD? Being involved isn't an excuse for not blocking there. He engaged in puerile heckling and dares while those in a position of authority turned a blind eye. Nev1 (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: This is the guy who said that 9 other votes didn't count, whislt his did. And it didn't "fail to reach consensus". Consensus was overwhelmingly to keep. That he would come here, and try to blame me for the fact that everyone was against it; ROTFL!!Mk5384

You can "write out what you want to say, prepare all of your links, etc, to ensure you have rational, reasoned arguments" in a draft in a section below in preparation for filing at RFC/U and/or ANI.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jeff G. But if I wrote it out here, then the liar would get to see it early, and get himself an extra 2 days to come up with new lies. I will, however, consider filing against Lar, as he is a corrupt admin of the worst kind. Probably won't do any good, as I'm sure the other admins protect their own. Still he shouldn't be permitted to block someone for no reason, and not be forced to answer for himself.Mk5384

We had an edit conflict on denying the unblock: I not only denied it, I extended the block for an additional week due to making personal attacks in the unblock request. Next time, I'll revoke talk page access.—Kww(talk) 17:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby decline to honor this block, and will make any and all edits to which I see fit. If you indef me, I will simply come back with a new user name. You'll never even know who I was. I almost prefer that, as then, I will be able to use other accounts to deal with those who need to be dealt with. As I was accused baselessly of socking before, I may as well get my money's worth out of that one. Consider yourself warned. Mk5384

Yo, asshole. I want you to revoke my talk page access. Let's offically cross the Rubicon here. I have several scores to settle, and the sooner you revoke my talk page access, the sooner I can begin. You don't have the guts to revoke my talk page access!!! Mk5384

These two edits (and only these two edits) were inappropriate comments made by me. Whilst I was quite justifiably angry at the moment, I regretfully crossed the line with these two edits, which didn't help anything.Mk5384 (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  — Jeff G. ツ 18:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening to sock is not good, and I intend to bring this up at WP:ANI to see what the experts thing should be done, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that an WP:RFC/USER be filed against you. I've suggested that such an action should not be done while you are not in a position to directly respond. A comment has been made that at the moment you may feel that the whole wikiworld is against you and no-one wants to talk about the issues as you see them.

For the moment, just sit out the block. Please do not create sockpuppets or issue threats against editors. Such action is only likely to end up with an indefinite block being applied. Sockpuppet accounts will be found and blocked. Once your block expires, the underlying issues can be addressed. Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Waters is not PF's Principal Songwriter, then who is? The next most prolific writer in Pink Floyd is Gilmour with four tracks TOTAL to his credit through 1983:

1) A Spanish Piece 2) The Narrow Way 3) Fat Old Sun 4) Childhood's End

Also, through The Final Cut there are 23 PF tracks that Waters is not credited as a writer or co-writer (there are 8 tracks on Piper which Waters did not write, 3 tracks on Saucerful, 2 tracks on Music from the Film More, 4 tracks on Ummagumma, 2 tracks on Atom Heart Mother, 2 tracks on Obscured by Clouds, 2 tracks on The Dark Side of the Moon), not the one track as you inserted in his page.

--GabeMc (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Merriam-Webster: -"Principal": most important, consequential, or influential. You are free to make the argument that Waters was not the most important, consequential, or influential songwriter in Pink Floyd. --GabeMc (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to look at it is this, of 120 PF tracks during Waters tenure with the band, he is a writer or co-writer on 97 tracks, or about 80% of all PF tracks from 1967-1983 were written or co-written by Waters. He has sole writing credit on 59 of 120. --GabeMc (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"However, as far as "principal songwriter" goes, I checked the talk page archives, and it looks like there was quite a bit of disagreement." Mk5384 (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There is always some disagreement before there is consensus. This language has not been debated or challenged in over 6 months. --GabeMc (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Gilmour's last songwriting contribution to the Waters era Floyd was in 1972. So who was Pink Floyd's primary songwriter after 1972? --GabeMc (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never asserted that Waters was not the principal songwriter. I just said that it could still be summed up to opinion, and needed to be sourced. As you have sourced it, there is no longer an issue in using the term.Mk5384 (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I agree that it needed to be sourced. --GabeMc (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you see something that needs to be sourced consider adding a ^{[citation needed]} comment, instead of edit warring and deleting info you actually agree with because you think it needs to be sourced. --GabeMc (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In adherance with BLP standards, unsourced information is to be deleted; not cite tagged. Whether I, as an editor, personally agree with something, is irrevalant. Also, please do not make baseless accusations of "edit warring". Perhaps you could point out this alleged "edit war."Mk5384 (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to incite anything, it seemed we went back and forth a few times deleting and replacing the term "principal" when you were the only editor who wanted it removed, that to me was a minor edit war. Let's just leave it at that, I don't want to argue, I was only trying to be helpful and the cite tag works well IME.--GabeMc (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as BLP standards, and your claim that "unsourced information is to be deleted", I think you might be taking that too literally. Imagine if EVERY unsourced statement on Wiki was removed. For example, the entire second paragraph of the Waters lead is not sourced, should it be deleted? There is not one citation in the entire lead paragraph of the Pink Floyd page, should the entire lead be deleted then rewritten with sources?--GabeMc (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim that unsourced information is to be deleted. Wikipedia claims it. "Contentious material must be removed immediately". (their emphasis) I don't see how something so explicitly clarified could be taken "too literally". "Imagine if every unsourced statement on Wiki was removed", is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; i.e. the 2nd paragraph isn't sourced, so this shouldn't have to be sourced either. (In addition, I see nothing contentious in the 2nd paragraph.) I'm glad you're "not trying to incite anything". However, agreeing that it needed to be sourced; then coming back 2 days later to say that I "edit warred" seems to speak to the contrary.Mk5384 (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't claim that unsourced information is to be deleted."Mk5384 (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In adherance with BLP standards, unsourced information is to be deleted; not cite tagged." Mk5384 (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

" I'm glad you're "not trying to incite anything". However, agreeing that it needed to be sourced; then coming back 2 days later to say that I "edit warred" seems to speak to the contrary." Mk5384 (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agreed that it needed to be sourced, not that it needed to be removed untill sourced, that is the difference.--GabeMc (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You were blocked for edit-warring. Instead, you should have added a ^{[citation needed]} tag at the end of the sentence." — Malik Shabazz 19:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is an admin confirming what I was suggesting above.--GabeMc (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Far from it. But feel free to continue to view Wikipedia admins as Christ-like. Alex Haley is dead, so BLP standards, which I attempted to explain to you, do not apply. Also, the admin in question, has openly declared himself to be Jimbo Wales when it comes to any article that mentions Malcolm X.Mk5384 (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk5384, I don't view anyone that way, but it is evidence that I was not completely wrong about citation needed tags versus deleting all unsourced material. Let's find a way to be civil. I have no gripe against you, and I would prefer it if we were not antagonistic towards each other, there is no need, we have the same goal. I have also had conflicts with other editors and admins who seemed to protect them, it's not fun. Consensus is sometimes 10 people who are wrong against 1 person who is correct. I had a whole to-do over McCartney, and I was correct about nearly everything I changed, but others disagreed and I was reverted numerous times. Eventually, most of the changes I wanted to make did stick, though I had to back them up with consensus and sources, which is your best bet in these cases. If you source the shit out of something, there leaves less room to argue. I have noticed a bit of clique mentality here, and when editors seem to be buddies with admins it can seem like a random sphere of influence. I think you could use an editor or two whom you are not battling 24/7. We could agree to "have each other's back", and work together respectfully. --GabeMc (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not battling with anyone "24/7". And with the exception of one single editor, I'm open to "working together respectfully" with any member of this project. I'm glad you "have no gripe with me". However, you said, "I don't want to argue. Let's just leave it at that.", and have since returned to my talk page to continue to attempt to prove that you were right. As far as "agreeing to work together respectfully", I'm all for that. As far as agreeing to "have each other's back", I can't openly engage in the same conduct that I despise about so many others here.Mk5384 (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Being an admin doesn't exempt an editor from having to follow the same Wikipedia policies and guidelines as every other editor. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you would care to correct your mistake.Mk5384 (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I haven't made a mistake. Second, I'd rather not violate WP:3RR. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you'd be violating 3RR to restore it to the correct version. I'm sure you're just waiting for me to violate 3RR, and honestly, I'm not sure what the point is in my not correcting it. The more time I spend here; the more I see how this encyclopaedia is about the preferences of those in charge, as opposed to the truth; the less I care. I not only care less and less about being blocked-people like you make me care less and less about the quality of this project.Mk5384 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should I block you now, or would you like to dig the hole a little deeper first?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, what am I doing now? Instead of reverting again and again, I took it to the appropriate noticeboard. And now again with the block threats. It's obvious that certain people apparently just want me blocked. Like I said, I care less and less. Do what you have to do.Mk5384 (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Yet, for the lede, because it looks better that way to Malik Shabazz, you want to pretend that Malcolm wrote it himself." "Because you're an admin, I'm supposed to ask for a "3rd opinion" about a fact that was never in dispute, and you just decided to change because you like it better that way."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek, Mk5384 was being a little snide, but I wouldn't call those personal attacks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I understand your point of view, but disagree in this case. The key bit of NPA here, as I see it, is "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Claiming that you're pretending that Malcolm wrote it himself because you like him is misrepresenting and disparaging you. I'm not going to block you on the grounds of what you've already said, but if there are more comments down these lines, I will.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk5384, Malik just cut you a break. I suggest you pull your horns in, please. Comment on content, not the contributor. Or your unblock won't have lasted long at all. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought that it would. I have no doubt I'll sooner or later be indefed, as people like you, Lar, won't be happy until they have my head on a platter. "Malik cut me a break", yet the blatantly false information on authorship is still the version for all the world to see. Again, I have, in front of me a copy of the book in question. Not only am I apparently blind or insane, but, as usual, I'm the asshole.Mk5384 (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke. That was nothing even remotely close to any sort of a personal attack, and you know it. Vandalism? Are you kidding me? You disappoint me Sarek. I thought you were one of the good ones. Notice however, no unblock request this time. I truly don't care anymore.Mk5384 (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

has asked me to unblock in favor of attempting to deal with your perceived behavior issues through a request for comments. That seems reasonable to me, so I've unblocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still blocked.Mk5384 (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought I had checked for autoblocks... fixed now? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please note that I have no intention of even reading the RfC. I did nothing wrong. If you want to reblock me, based on that comment, so be it. Mk5384 (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What an absolute crock of shit. Just another example of how admins can do absolutely anything they wish, whilst imposing utterly baseless blocks on those who dare cross them. I understand exactly what I've been blocked for; it's called administrative corruption. I didn't cause any fucking damage in the first fucking place.Mk5384 (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Sarek; have you no shame? Why did you unblock me in the first place if you were just going to play games like this?Mk5384 (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked you to give you a better chance at RFC/U than you'd have sitting out a block. It was your choice to edit war against three different editors today. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are an absolute disgrace. You sure are making up for lost time since picking up your admin tools again. I hope you feel good about yourself. Fuck you.Mk5384 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The worst part of all this, is the Alex Haley article is now going to stand with the false information for another 22 hours. The only ones that this absurd block is hurting are our readers.Mk5384 (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you strike the statement that you will continue edit warring as soon as you're unblocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about edit warring. I said that I will correct the article. Apparently "edit warring" is fine, when you bullet proof admins do it. For someone else, pledging to correct an obviously incorrect article is somehow grounds for more threats. How about I just change it to say that The Autobiography of Malcolm X was actually written by the Easter Bunny? It will be equally as incorrect as it is now.Mk5384 (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|The reviewing admin agrees that Sarek should not have made the block, yet declined my unblock request. This is a joke, right? Sarek should have agreed to get consensus before beginning his edit war. Fine. I will agree to get consensus.}}

I also agreed with the block. Do you want me to unblock you and block you again?
And FWIW, SarekOfVulcan did not start this edit war. Amalthea 17:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just said, above, "agree to get consensus first, and I'm happy to unblock you." I have agreed.Mk5384 (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that in the edit conflict.
But, for the love of God, please tread carefully. You have been here long enough, you must have known how the edit warring would end. Don't do that again. Preview your edits and make sure that you sound less aggressive from now on. This is a collaborative project, it only works if we discuss differences (somewhat civilly), and if you are convinced you are right, the only way to keep your position in the article is if you convince the other editors that you are right.
I sound condescending, but reading through your talk page and some diffs in your block log and RfCU, I can't imagine that another block would have an expiration date.
Amalthea 18:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Per above. You said you "agree to get consensus". I'll hold you that, don't edit the fact until there is clear consensus. Request handled by: Amalthea Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I cautioned you some months ago that if you continued with your aggressive ways, you would find yourself indefinitely blocked. It appears you're slipping back into those ways, and I expect my predictions will come to fruition if things don't change - the community's patience has surely been exhausted at this point.

I realize you are passionate about Wikipedia - this is a good thing - but you need to channel that passion more constructively.

Please consider reviewing any constructive criticism offered at the RFC/U and taking it on board. –xeno^talk 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt how this is going to end Xeno. The end was written a long time ago. ( Not by me.) This just another example of the myriad problems here. "Consensus" trumps truth. There is not one knoweledgeable person in the real world who will claim that The Autobiography of Malcolm X was written by anyone other than Alex Haley. But with the cabal of admins who protect each other here, it's not only OK to ignore the truth; it's become commonplace to charge the little guy trying to fix things with some imaginary infraction. The blocks are serving a purpose, though. With each unjust block, I care less and less. This is all going to end with me either being indefed, or finally becoming disgusted enough with all the bullshit, that I just walk away. If other admins here possessed one tenth of your character, this would be a very different place.Mk5384 (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now had a quick look at this particular issue, and I don't think that "truth" is as absolute as you make it. Alex Haley was the ghostwriter of the book, right? How are ghostwriter and the publisher-declared "author" treated in a scholarly context? Which one should be called "author"? I don't know that. It doesn't seem to be a simple question with a simple answer, to me, and not only to me apparently. You declare your point of view as "truth", but can you back that up (and book covers can only serve as primary sources, and they are apparently conflicting anyway). Amalthea 18:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says that he's "best known as the author of Roots, and as Malcolm X's collaborator..." First of all, there's no source given, so "best known" seems to be original research. I changed it to "known for Roots & The Autobiography of Malcolm X." If someone was going to revert me, they should have brought a source to say that Mr. Haley was, in fact, "best known for writing Roots & being Malcolm's collaborator". There is no source. The most disgusting part of that was OberRanks, of all people, reverting it. Malik Shabazz, and Sarek of Vulcan, whilst wrong, at least attempted to give reasons. OberRanks did it with the sole intention of supporting anything that was against me. How he wasn't summarily blocked for disruption escapes me.Mk5384 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There really isn't any ambiguity, except in Mk5384's mind. See the recent discussions at Talk:The Autobiography of Malcolm X#Authorship and at WP:RS/N#The Autobiography of Malcolm X. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the Alex Haley article, Malik.Mk5384 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it's the same issue. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, because you say it is. You, of all people, should that one Wikipedia article can't be used as a source for another. Just because one article is factually incorrect, that's no reason to insist that another comply. I'd still like to see a source that supports the statement that that's how Mr. Haley was "best known". What if I wrote something like, "Alex Haley didn't really write Roots; in reality, he was H. Rap Brown's collaborator"? That wouldn't be any less correct than the article is now. And again-this is not about Mk5384, Malik Shabazz, Sarek of Vulcan, or any of us. It is about our readers, who are getting false information because it sounds better that way to those in power here.Mk5384 (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you said it was the same issue. not going to perpetuate the same lie on 2 pages In any event, I just provided a source for the statement about the collaboration, and removed the word "best" (for which I'm too lazy to find a source right now). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I said. One article being incorrect is no reason to perpetuate the same lie on two pages. The source you're using is highly dubious. It mentions the fact that he collaborated with Malcolm after stating that he wrote the book. His authorship of the book should be in the lede; not his collaboration. What a huge disservice we do; both to our readers, and to Mr. Haley's legacy, when we falsely credit someone else with writing Mr. Haley's book. But like I said; you're an admin, & your word is law. You see what I got for having the audacity to challenge you.Mk5384 (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was much easier than I thought to find a source that said Haley was "best known" for Roots and the Autobiography. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You got blocked for challenging me? What a load of bullshit. You were blocked for edit-warring. Instead, you should have added a {{Citation needed}} tag at the end of the sentence. You really need to start taking some responsibility for your own actions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the source you're using says "co-author"; not "collaborator". So there's your load of bullshit. You're twisting the facts to keep the article exactly the way you want it. And please don't think I'm that naive. Sarek came to your aid to keep the page the way you wanted it. It's quite common when someone has no defence for what they've done to tell the other person to "start taking some responsibility for your own actions". Like I said, this place is an absolute goddamn joke.Mk5384 (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the word "co-author" unclear to you? If Haley was co-author, it means he collaborated with Malcolm X. In any event, the New York Times article says Haley collaborated with Malcolm X, and the second source says he's best known for the two books. I'm not sure what your complaint is at this point. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you don't. I really don't care about this anymore. You got your way, which we both knew was going to happen from the beginning. Now, you're just going to keep browbeating me until I agree with you. Maybe, during my travels tonight, I'll see Malcolm X alive and well, working at a gas station alongside Elvis. Then we can put that in the article as well.Mk5384 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Elvis is living in a nursing home with JFK.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until recently, I would have appreciated your humor, under the circumstances. But in light of what you've done to me, I don't see how it's appropriate.Mk5384 (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel I'm abusing my position as an administrator, file a report at WP:AN/I. Put up or shut up. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see you've taken to lying about me. I have never used rollback in this dispute. As I wrote, put up or shut up. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making baseless accusations of lying. I said it appears (emphasis added). As you suggested to another user, perhaps a pair of reading glasses would do you good. There's nothing more I need to "put up", at this point. An admin has stepped in, and put a stop to your edit war, so it's all good.Mk5384 (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk, in fairness to Malik, it's worth pointing that he requested the protection. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's admirable. There's still no excuse for his edit warring, and plethora of reverts to his preferred version.Mk5384 (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got in 4 great sources before it got protected. --GabeMc (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malik said : "Now I see you've taken to lying about me. I have never used rollback in this dispute." Not exactly true, you arbitrarily reverted me twice [19] and [20]. --GabeMc (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take my comments to Malik Shabazz last night to be any kind of justification for your recent behavior. I didn't bother leaving you a message prior to seeing the comments you later left for him because I thought it was clear from recent history that any warning would be useless and any input would be ignored. For clarity, my not becoming of an admin comment was not meant to imply in any way that I think they are being abusive with their position or their tools. I just expect the best from admins.

Dispute resolution can be time intensive. That doesn't make it a waste of time. It's much better than silly edit wars with both sides saying that they're right and that the article has to reflect their "rightness" even while discussion is ongoing. --Onorem♠Dil 13:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean the process itself was a waste of time. I meant that it was a waste of time to file against an administrator. I didn't take it to mean anything. I simply pointed out what you said.Mk5384 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I just wanted to be more clear. It's tough dealing entirely through text at times. Hope you have a good day. --Onorem♠Dil 14:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise.Mk5384 (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mk, just to let you know that full protection applies equally to all editors, whether or not they also happen to be admins. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of that. Thank you for clarifying that.Mk5384 (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MK You and I have worked together before, we've been working partners together. Now I know theres that RFC about you, and a lot of things have some concern. But I've trusted you and I have defended you in what you've been doing from others but theres only so much me (and a handful of Admins) can do to defend you from those who want to block you without you partaking in the discussion. Please consider just showing them that you are the policy abiding and reasonable person I know you to be. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that you've defended me. I figured the RfCwouldn't go as he planned it. I could care less about anyone who wants to block me. I've done nothing wrong, and apparently, at least you know that. Thank you for your concern and support.Mk5384 (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, but I cannot shake the feeling that I can only do so much in your defense, It would be best if you did just go over there and show them you are a policy-abiding editor The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just call me Giles Corey.Mk5384 (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MK, I wanted you to know that, at my suggestion, OberRanks has voluntarily removed himself from further participation in the RfC. It's my hope that this action will encourage you to look in over there and make your feelings known about the concerns that a number of folks have raised. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a favor to me, please read my comment to you on the RfC under "Desired Outcome" before you post there again. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are admins who would block you for exceeding three reverts in 24 hours, especially so contentiously. In this case, it's perhaps questionable since the first one didn't exactly undo someone else's edit, and in any case I wouldn't block since I'm the one you're reverting. Furthermore this is a self-correcting problem since it will be seven days since Byrd's death soon enough. As a word to the wise, though, please read and understand WP:CONSENSUS; it's how things work around here. Even if the letter of WP:3RR hasn't been broken here, your contentious editing borders on WP:DISRUPTION, which is, in itself, a blockable offense. I'm hoping a polite word here will help redirect you to content building rather than WP:WIKILAWYERING over placement of a template that is clearly within consensus to keep on Byrd's page.  Frank  |  talk  02:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment on the RFC is wise. You should seek a mentor, someone who is calm and has long experience. You can vent by email to your mentor instead of on Wikipedia and get god advice on how to be persuasive rather than merely abusive; this is likely to reduce the amount of drama surrounding you. I don't think it's the first time this suggestion has been made. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I've been anything less than persuasive, and I certainly don't see where I've been abusive. But, of course, I must be wrong, as usual. I like you, Guy. I don't know that I'd have said that a fortnight ago, but you seem to be a decent fellow.Mk5384 (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you! You could do with taking comments by people like Sarek at face value too. I don't see any investment there in hounding you off the project. Sarek is good people regardless of any disagreements you might have, ditto Malik. Believe it or not we are honestly trying to help you by making constructive comments even while enforcing policies and trying to manage drama in which you are involved. You do seem to personalise disputes, this is really not doing you any favours - I believe someone said you can behave like a cornered rat at times, biting anyone who approaches you even if they are trying to rescue you from your corner. I don't know how accurate that is but in any case you should make a conscious effort to drop the battleground mentality and you should certainly stop discounting comments just because of who said them. We have seen many, many people flame out on Wikipedia, the advice offered is the sum total of a huge amount of experience with such people. Chill! It's Wikipedia, nobody dies. You can also make friends by Wikignoming - formatting and spellchecking unloved articles. This helps to reduce the proportion of your Wiki time that's spent on hot butotn topics and in disputes, and makes your overall feeling about the Wikipedia community more positive. These thoughts are just my own thoughts, they have no official standing, but I've been around a while so do please take them in the spirit in which they are offered. Cheers, Guy (Help!) 09:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(aside) One way of getting away from revert wars is to use the discussion page. You want to say X, someone reverts, talk to the someone about how to cover X in language they might find acceptable. If they think X should not be mentioned at all then try a content RFC or third opinion, and if it goes against you then... walk away. We have three million other articles you could edit! Guy (Help!) 09:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my edit history, I think you'll find I do quite a bit of "Wikignoming". I enjoy it. And I meant what I said at the RfC. I joined Wikipedia, after years of using it, because I think Jim Wales' goal of making "the sum of all knoweledge" available to everyone is just a wonderful idea. Anyway, I'll do my best to take what you said under consideration.Mk5384 (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk, on a personal note, I don't think anybody on the RFC page, or at least most people, would disagree that your overarching motives here are good. It's clear to me that you really want to contribute usefully which is what makes it so painful for me to see the way this is headed. But in order to truly succeed as part of this community, you have to not only contribute usefully to content, you have to also be able to coexist (relatively) peacefully with other editors, which is what I have been trying to help you see. I also think a mentor could help, for what it's worth. All the best. — e. ripley\^talk 12:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits and your comments. I left replies for you at Talk:Betty Shabazz, and I'd appreciate your feedback. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was promoted to GA today. Thanks again for your help. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did almost all of the work, but I was happy to do what I could. Best-Mk5384 (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 21:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, what BoP said. Sorry about that... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also did and said some things I'm not very proud of, and I apologize for that. Thank you for proposing a compromise after the article was protected.

I don't know which way the community ban proposal will go, but I sincerely hope you're not banned. When everybody stays cool, you can be very agreeable to work with, as our experience at Betty Shabazz showed me. And staying cool is a two-way street, which is something editors around here—myself included—sometimes forget.

Best of luck. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Malik.Mk5384 (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The plural form octopi is commonly regarded as a hypercorrection. As far as I am aware, no distinction is made for single species vs. multiple species; octopus is not akin to fish in this respect. Our own article on octopuses explains this better than I possibly could. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a tad leary about the Wikipedia article for "hypercorrection", as it seems to rely largely on the OED. (The OED certainly meets WP:RS, but it can be quite problematic.) For instance, it says that octopus is often spelled "octopae", or "octopai", "due to the mistaken belief that octopus is a Latin word". Same for "hippopotamus". The idea that Greek words were mistakenly believed to be Latin is far fetched. It's not very easy to confuse "hippus potamious", with "equus flumenis". Using the Latin genitive case plural of first declension feminine nouns is just one of the ubiquitous idiosyncrasies of the English language. In any case, it's certainly nothing that's worth an argument. Thank you for your response, and the information. Best-Mk5384 (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message is to notify you that per the consensus expressed at ANI, the community has subjected you to the following restriction(s):

Civility restriction: If Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) makes any comment that is deemed by an administrator to have been uncivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, or if Mk5384 otherwise behaves in a uncollegial manner, broadly construed, he may be blocked for up to a week.

After four upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction or other issues, Mk5384 will be indefinitely blocked.

Interaction ban: Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and OberRanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are indefinitely banned from interacting with one another, indirectly or directly, except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly.

If either of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hours they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same mannerm but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption.

Violations of the interaction restrictions may result in a block for any time limit up to a week. After four upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction or other issues, the violating editor will be indefinitely blocked.

This has been logged to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk, I am looking forward to seeing all your good contributions. From one fellow hardhead to another, criticism can be a bitter pill, but also sometimes (sometimes) good medicine. Good luck. — e. ripley\^talk 16:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind message.Mk5384 (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One week for edit warring this time. You know how to use {{unblock}} by now.—Kww(talk) 13:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be noted that Mk5384 was attempting to insert a compromise edit [21] that one of other parties did not object to [22]. I'm not sure why they, or Daedalus969, reverted it without indicating they do not support the compromise version on the talk page. –xeno^talk 13:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The unblock request doesn't seem to address the edit-warring (just because you are being civil doesn't mean you may edit war!). You should definitely slow down on the reverts and wait for the discussion to come to a conclusion (even if others don't). That being said, I don't think this block needs to run its course; article protection may be a better option (especially given that the other dispute partners have not been blocked). –xeno^talk 15:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was for the reviewing admin (though it had already been reviewed by the time I posted it). –xeno^talk 15:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kww has said numerous times, "I would have indefed you", and he was obviously just waiting for the chance to do this.Mk5384 (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And notice, when I made apologies in the past, Kww was not on that list. That he would block me for "edit warring", whilst turning a blind eye to the others reinforces what I've always believed about him.Mk5384 (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These comments don't seem relevant or constructive, I'd suggest removing them. If it helps, I almost blocked you for edit warring as well. –xeno^talk 15:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're revelant, as Kww is a corrupt fucking cocksucker who would have the audacity to block me for something at least two others did.Mk5384 (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]