User talk:Mark Marathon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, Mark Marathon, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on this page and someone will drop by to help. You can also contact me if you wish by clicking "talk" to the right of my name. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Contents

Thanks...[edit]

...for your contribution to the article Dingo! Chrisrus (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

...and your more recent edit to adjust the "WP:UNDUE weight" given to older taxonomies the article Dingo! Chrisrus (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I think there may be a similar "WP:UNDUE weight" problem at the article New Guinea Singing Dog that could use a little of your WP:NPOV attention in much the same way. If New Guinea Singing Dog Warriors give you a hard time, stay frosty like Mr. Spock! Keep up the good work! Chrisrus (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Assorted info[edit]

G'day Mark, there are a few of us interested in Aussie flora - I'm in Sydney, Melburnian (talk · contribs) is in Victoria, Hesperian (talk · contribs) is in WA and Poyt448 (talk · contribs) is also in Sydney and likes rainforest flora. I can show you a few templates to bolster articles with. Also take a look at T:TDYK. If you start an article and buff it up to 1500 bytes/300 words, you can submit for a shot of 6 hours on the main page (with an interesting hook). I will see what I can do with any of yours. Then, if you want the stuff to keep, buffing to Good or Featured status acts like a "stable revision" that folks have agreed on. For an example, I have Banksia marginata as a candidate currently - see its talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Page titles[edit]

Hi Mark, I've come across your recently created lists of Acacia species and would like to remind you that per the WP:Naming conventions we use lower cases for all words in the article titles, except for proper names. I've moved your lists to new titles but for future pages you might want to go with lower case titles as well. Happy editing, De728631 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Thanks.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

See also WP:COI in case it might apply. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Casuarina[edit]

Hi Mark, I changed the wording in the intro to better reflect the statement in the reference that the native status of this species in Madagascar in doubtful. 'Possibly native' doesn't accurately express this doubt, but rather makes it seem that it is relatively likely that the species is native. This is an important distinction as it has implications for the native range of the species, and reading that they are 'possibly native' to Madagascar is certainly odd and needs more explanation. I think this is worth a few extra words. Could also move this further down to 'distribution and habitat', but it should definitely be included. Let me know your thoughts, I'll look for them here. Cheers! Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Santos Reyes[edit]

Sorry Mark, I didn't mean to over-ride your undo of my edits on Santos Reyes. I hadn't looked at the history when I did it, so I assumed that I hadn't pressed the final "OK" on the edits. That's why I re-did the edits. I don't think I actually eliminated anything in the previous version, just reorganized. However, I am not that experienced with Wikipedia and I think my mistake was to do too much in one single edit. The practice seems to work more incrementally. Anyway, it's not my intention to get into an edit war with you, so apologies again if it seemed that way.

Carbon flux - Tropical rainforest[edit]

That was fast. I've removed the section under dispute as the editing group has not responded to your talk page concerns. If the section misrepresents the reference - then I'd say remove it. You are welcome to rewrite it in compliance with the reference. Vsmith (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Paper daisy[edit]

Thanks for this - I was hangin' for a wild photo rather than cultivar - can you note where it was taken? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Done.Mark Marathon (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Tropical rainforest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fragmentation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

2,4-D author COI[edit]

Hi Mark Marathon,

I've posted on the 2,4-D talk page about the Dow Chemical study. I'm interested in your feedback.

monolemma t – 21:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Albizia canescens for DYK?[edit]

Hello, Mark. Thank you for writing up the article on the Australian tree Albizia canescens. Please be encouraged to nominate this article for DYK on MainPage when you are done with the typing. A nomination needs to be posted on T:TDYK by August 29th (the fifth day after the creation of this wikiarticle). Good Luck. --PFHLai (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Tree[edit]

Do not restore the hidden text of sarcastic and belittling comments on Tree (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views). Yes the article needs work, but those hidden comments are not an appropriate approach to addressing the issues. If you have productive comments, take them to the article talk page. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rockhampton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Myoporum montanum[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Capparis lasiantha[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorghum[edit]

Hi. May I ask why do you keep removing the manufactured sorghum example? Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it perhaps because you are uncertain that "massaggo" is sorghum? Because it in fact is (c.f. [1]). Please at least provide a rationale for the removal since you did not do so in either of your edit summaries. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Eucalyptus cambageana[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for:

For being in 2 edit wars then coming back by making an many articles! IanMurrayWeb (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Glass is a liquid misconception[edit]

(Note: I'm listing this on the talk pages of all editors active at Talk:List of common misconceptions for the last two weeks).

I started an RfC on the "glass is a liquid" issue that caused the edit war leading to protection status. Your comments would be appreciated, so that we can build a consensus and avoid further edit warring. siafu (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Hi Mark! Thanks for helping out on Al-Ahliyya Amman University. I'm going to let it sit fo a bit longer before doing anything, but hopefully that will break the deadlock. Your help is much appreciated - when we get stuck in these sorts for two-way deadlocks, I'm generally not worried about which way we end up going, but we do need to go somewhere. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Al-Ahliyya Amman University[edit]

When you expressed your opinion, did you consider the section WP:ABOUTSELF of the Verifiability policy? --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Cord Meyer[edit]

Hi, Mark Marathon. Thanks for the third opinion. An idea of how to provide neutrally worded text would be appreciated if you have the time. By the way, my inquiry was actually due to the section above to which you responded; however, it appears as though that has been resolved in that the other user didn't click on page 2 of the source that was provided. Cheers! Location (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles with your good photos and links to the Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants identification system.[edit]

G’day Mark Marathon,

I’m a field botanist–ecologist–naturalist (and database, GIS) professional, from the temperate rainforests & Euc. forests country of far eastern Victoria—my nature farm home base—currently learning some of the Wet Tropics forests, living in that region.

Regarding the articles you’ve created or largely updated, including your great photos—especially thank you for all the your great photos added, some of them positively fantastic/lovely. If a chance, I’d love some more too, but don’t 'wanna' ask too much, as i appreciate the massive voluntary work already done of the photos you’ve made freely available to all. Just to let you have awareness of the especially glaringly missing photos of significant Australian Wet Tropics rainforests plants: Stockwellia quadrifida, Austrobaileya scandens and Gymnostoma australianum (etc.).

Anyway, to the point of this talk section;

Please, do you mind me updating the citations or external links to the Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants identification system that you’ve made in those articles? (About 26 articles I’ve counted.)

I have created a quicker, easier and more efficient template for us all to use. Please see and freely utilise it—the {{RFK6.1}} template. ——--macropneuma 01:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No response! I’m tired of waiting while my above message gets ignored. Good photos deserve good reference sources, well cited. ——--macropneuma 02:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meditteranean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Desert Oak[edit]

Hi Mark, lets not get into a stupid edit war over this. A Google search for "desert oak" combined with either "Allocasuarina decaisneana" or "Acacia coriacea" will certainly bring up plenty of hits but this does not prove anything. Searching for "holden monaro" and "desert oak" gets hits on Google (interestingly the only one of those that specifies the species refers to Allocasuarina decaisneana). Referring to an authoritative text carries far more weight when it comes to an encyclopaedic work, and as it turns out I have found one to support your assertion - a 1986 version of Flora of South Australia includes desert oak among the names of Acacia coriacea, so I will add that reference. However we still need to mention that the name is usually applied to the Allocasuarina as is shown by most recent Australian flora guides, both on line and hard copy that I have access to. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you please help me out by showing me where I claimed that a Google search for "Acacia coriacea" & "desert oak" comes up with no hit at all?
Would you also please point out where the relevant links from ANBG (searching ANBG for desert oak comes up with both species with the primary common name of A. coriacea listed as wirwewood), CSIRO (do you mean [2] which lists the trade name for A. coriacea as desert oak and the common name as dogwood?), Royal Botanic Gardens ([3] gives the primary commobn name as wirewood, ABRS (Isn't that ANBG? Are you referring to them twice?) are? They are not coming up in my searches, at least not on the first several pages.
As for search engine hijackers, there is no need to get sarcastic. And your assertion that the range of desert oak is negligible is interesting, if you compare [4] and [5] both species have ranges bigger than Queensland.
You will see in my citations of Jessop that I gave the page numbers so I will not repeat them. The precise quotes are as follows: "1. A. decaisneana (F. Muell.)L. Johnson, J.Adelaide Bot.Gard. 6:74(1982). Desert oak, Desert sheoak." thus listing only two common names and leading with desert oak, and for the acacia; "21. A. coriacea DC., Prod. 2:451 (1825). Wire-wood, desert oak, wiry wattle."
See also p41 of part 1, "The principal criteria used in selecting common names were that names should be those most likely to be widely known, helpful in indicating relationships,derived, where appropriate from well-known scientific generic names and including names used interstate even if not currently used in South Australia. It was also agreed to accept names currently used overseas and to exclude names used for unrelated species or likely to cause offence.
"Names (both generic and specific) selected by the committee are printed in bold."..."Those not selected by the committee are printed in italics."
Desert oak is printed in bold in the entry for decaisneana and in italics for coriacea indicating that the committee selected it as the common name for decaisneana and not for coriacea.
This discussion should really be placed on the talk page for coriacea so all interested parties can see it and not have to trawl through our respective talk pages. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Kangaroo[edit]

Discussion at Talk:Kangaroo#Geographic or political locale[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kangaroo#Geographic or political locale. stillnotelf is invisible 17:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Third Opinion project[edit]

Thank you, Mark, for helping to improve Wikipedia and making it a nicer place to work by giving a Third Opinion. Just a quick reminder: When you do give an opinion, please remember to remove the listing from the 3O page. I usually remove them when I decide to give the opinion so that some other volunteer won't try to take it at the same time and waste their (or my) effort. Again, thanks for helping. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer[edit]

Mark, I appreciate your answering my request for a third opinion. I accept what you say, and will take forward the issues re my deleted contributions. Edit war averted!

Thank you

23:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Tropical rainforest without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Bushland[edit]

Could you please not remove sourced material from such a short article? Please take it to the talk page, wait for consensus and then make changes. My view for such short articles is that expansion is more important than getting every detail exact and precise. Do you disagree? Hopefully I have provided some clarification regarding the Brisbane Bushland program. It was just an example, more should be included. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Natural landscape, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wasteland and Parkland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI:[edit]

FYI: → http://austronesian.linguistics.anu.edu.au/historydownloads/Barton_etal_2012_QI_intro.pdf

Stylosanthes[edit]

Every large genus is faced with the choices of non-notable redlinks, bias in selection, or no mention of subordinate taxa at all. Isn't imperfect information better than no information these cases?Masebrock (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Your ant edits[edit]

Hi, I have created a section here to discuss images at the Green-head ant article. I have recommended using a non-cropped main photo in the infobox. Please try to come to consencus as desired. Thanks. ☺ Gryllida (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You have a new message in the section I linked above, please, take a look at it and the article, and respond there. ☺ Thanks! Gryllida (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


1RR rule on abortion-related articles[edit]

I see you've received numerous warnings about edit-warring in the recent past. However, I don't see that anyone has formally notified you that abortion-related articles are subject to a 1RR rule (that is, no more than 1 revert by any editor within a 24-hour period). You appear to have racked up three fairly quick reverts at sex-selective abortion. Going forward, please make an effort to respect the 1RR rule on abortion-related articles, as well as a greater effort to respect this site's policies against edit-warring in general. MastCell Talk 21:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

3O[edit]

Your edit-summaries did not explain who is going to render the 3O. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

regarding your input on article....[edit]

Thank you, Mark, for your consideration to this matter. What you need to understand about your point of "verifiability, not truth" is the simple fact that NOT ALL sources and refs in the world agree with this dogmatic statement and wording and position that Greek Orthodoxy traces directly from the first-century apostles. It's NOT "verified" in that real sense. Also, as I said, those refs that "K" drummed up do not all say clearly what he thinks they said, and even if they do, those refs ARE NOT NEUTRAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS, as far as wording. WP is supposed to convey neutrality in tone, with things like this. This nonsense view that Greek Orthodoxy is right from the Apostles, and that "making the sign of the cross" was a practice of the Apostles is NOT EVEN CLOSE to "sky blue". It's ridiculous to even think that. No matter what refs say this (of course there are people who think the same way "K" does...that's a straw-man...), because we're to ignore accomplished writer and theologian Dr Robert Morey, who TOTALLY disagrees and disavows and rejects Greek Orthodoxy as ever being from the Apostles, or as even being Biblically Christian at all? Read Morey's book (there's a ref right there) "Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian?" As one of a number of examples. You think James White believes that Greek Orthodoxy is traced directly from the Apostles?

Again, this is NOT "verifiable" in the real total sense. Plenty of refs find the notion false, if not absurd. Is Wikepedia to ignore them, for "I don't like" reasons by a certain editor? And cherry-pick refs that suit K's own agenda and bias, for "I like reasons"? That's clearly against WP policy, against POV pushing, and against how WP is supposed to be very NPOV in matters like this. You don't see me putting in the article stuff like "Greek Orthodox believe they trace right from the apostles, but of course that's false"...do you?

I'm leaving and making the wording NEUTRAL AND UNBIASED. Dr K is not...and then desperately appeals to sources that back up his POV...as if that ultimately means anything on WP, especially if he ignores and disparages any source that rejects that notion, by calling it uhm "fringe". Fail. Let me ask you...Mark....is there something so terrible and wrong with saying "some historians believe Greek Orthodox trace directly from the apostles" or that "it is claimed by some that making the sign of the cross is from the first-century apostles"?? Is that a bad thing to word it neutrally? When so many people in the world (lay-people as well as professional scholars and writers) simply don't believe or buy that idea? I'm only interested in NPOV...in any article on WP...not trying to diss anyone or anything. And that's important. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My response to your comment on my page[edit]

I never said that those refs can't be used to make the general point or statement. That's fine. What you're not grasping or maybe just not understanding where I'm coming from (or the WP policy regarding this) now is that it doesn't matter how those refs word things, as those refs in question are NOT neutral encyclopedias, and those refs are valid to bring in (no problem) only as far as giving the point that "it's believed"...when dealing with cases like this. I know about "verifiability, not truth". I told you appreciated your time and attention to this matter, but now you seem to missing the point yourself, about simple NPOV wording...that's all. It's not about which ref can or can't be used, per se, to make the general point. But for WP to state dogmatically is another thing. Other refs (do you even agree with that), don't even come close to agreeing with the words or notion that "Greek Orthodoxy came directly from the first century apostles" or "making the sign of the cross was from the apostles" etc? I don't disagree that those refs can be used, but the point is neutral tone...and that WP is not to endorse one position like that, especial in cases like this. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pterocaulon sphacelatum may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[File:Pterocaulon sphacelatum flowers.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Flowers]]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

response.....[edit]

Hello. What you don't understand, Mark, is that "alternative views" ARE at least some published by reliable sources. What part of that is so hard for you or Dr. K. to believe or grasp? Seriously. I put in a link already, of Doctor Morey source, as just one example. That will be called "undue weight" or "fringe"? Seriously.

Just about all Protestant writers in the world disavow the notion that "making the sign of the cross came right from the apostles". That notion right there, for example, should be stated in a neutral WP article as unquestioned fact? Where is that? And no, you're wrong, NPOV is paramount when it comes matters like this. This is NOT a "sky blue" situation (regardless of what Dr. Kr. OR you seem to think). it's NOT all reliable sources in the world that state this view as "unambiguous fact". A number do of course. I never denied that. But most or all of Protestant scholarship does not really hold to that in quite that sense. Many disavow it completely. We can't call Robert Morey, Rob Zins, or James White "fringe" or "undue weight" simply because we feel their view on this is irrelevant, or not to our liking. I would not be going on like this IF this was a genuine "sky blue" situation. But "making the sign of the cross was a practice of or came directly from the Apostles" notion is not even close to that.

There are plenty of writers and sources that refute or just disagree with Greek Orthodox claims on this. That shouldn't be ignored or denied. And it can't be said in circular argument that it's "undue weight". How so, when there are SO MANY people on earth who either doubt or outright disavow the Greek Orthodox claims?

For instance, again, you honestly think, for example, that this notion that "making the sign of the cross" was something taken directly from the Apostles, when there's no real evidence for that...or when so many Protestant scholars (TONS of them) flatly reject that notion? That's NOT "undue weight". So, no, YOU'RE wrong on that. NPOV is important with this. Period. As I said though, already, I won't be on the merry-go-round forever on this. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

How so, when there are SO MANY people on earth who either doubt or outright disavow the Greek Orthodox claims? In Wikipedia we don't go by people on earth, we go by reliable sources. The names you have supplied are those of baptist apologists. It is their calling to oppose the other denominations including the Orthodox church. These are not reliable, neutral sources to determine the historical details of any Church which they oppose by definition. You have to do better than that and find neutral, academically accepted, reputable sources which evaluate the history of the Orthodox Church. Nothing "circular" about that. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The red herring of the sign of the cross[edit]

Hi Mark. The dispute, as you know, is not about the sign of the cross. It is about the weasel modifiers "are believed to" regarding the Apostolic origins of the church. The sign of the cross is a red herring, which I never raised and didn't even know it existed in the text until it was raised by the other user. In any case, as you can verify by reading the article, in the article text the use of the sign of the cross is qualified by the verb "claim": Among these traditions are claimed to be the use of incense, Liturgical Worship, Priesthood, making the sign of the cross, etc. so it is not stated as fact as claimed in the section above. But again, the issue is not with the sign of the cross but with the weasel modifiers and I want to reiterate and make clear that I am not interested in the issue of the sign of the cross but only in the issue of the weasel modifiers. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Mark. Thank you for removing most of the weasel modifiers. However the last one "are believed to be traced back" still remains. It is supposed to read "can be traced back": [6]. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"making the sign of the cross" NOT in any of the refs...[edit]

sorry, Mark, you never addressed (you're not always around on that Talk page), the specific matter of dogmatically stating that "making the sign of the cross" can be traced to the Apostles. You somehow seemed to believe that that was also sourced, even though it actually wasn't. The simple fact that NONE of the sources put in (and there quite a few) actually stated that specific thing. I did not remove that statement, but I placed a citation needed tag only for the "making of the sign of the cross" statement...as not one of the refs given support that specific sentence, as even admitted by Dr.K.... NONE of the sources actually say that...for that specifically. Not sure why you thought that. You were going on and on to me about "if it's sourced it does not need to be stated neutrally" and "it should be stated as fact if it's sourced", but it seems you never bothered to actually see (unless I missed something somewhere in any of the refs) that the "making the sign of the cross coming directly from the Apostles" is not really supported or specifically stated in refs. Hence my placement (at least) of the citation needed tag. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

refs...[edit]

Hello to Mark and Dr. K. I know that the discussion is pretty much over, and some decisions were already reached. Though it's arguable that it should have been decided just by two editors, who may be over-reaching a bit with the notion that all reliable sources in the world state the Greek Orthodox position of "tracing directly to the Apostles", regardless of the clear fact that that notion has been denied or challenged by respected theologians and writers. But because Mark and Dr. K. insisted I provide refs that give the analysis that Greek Orthodoxy (or Eastern Orthodoxy) does NOT trace itself directly from the Apostles, etc, I pointed (and even linked) to Robert Morey's book "Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian". As one example. I already knew that that would pretty much be shooed away as "not reliable" or maybe even "fringe". Which is why I never really bothered elaborating Morey's words, or his book...in any of my comments. I figured, why waste time, when it the quotes would be dismissed anyway? But I figure why not just finally give you a direct quote from his book, instead of simply citing the book generally. Here's one of many quotes that challenge or deny Greek Orthodox claims to Apostolic origins.

Quote:

"The historical reality is that Eastern Orthodoxy does not represent the Early Church that came into existence form the preaching of the Apostles."

(Robert Morey, Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian?, pages 20-21, 2007)


Also, a ref and quote that you MIGHT consider “less fringe”...

“...the claim to unbroken continuity is appealing....We would contest this claim on a number of fronts. It appears to at least some of us that this claim does not adequately account for the substantial differences between ancient practice and Byzantine innovations and embraces an unrealistic ecclesiology.”

(Michael Horton, Three Views On Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, 2004) Gabby Merger (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gum tree, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spotted gum and Ghost gum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Tea Tree Oil[edit]

Hi Mark,

I understand you were mislead recently regarding the effectiveness Tea Tree Oil. I am going to be making some changes to the wiki based on two recent Pubmed secondary source review articles. These articles reflect that TTO is effective in treating infections and is safe to use externally with certain precautions (e.g. as any medication). Here are the articles if you'd like to review them and participate. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1288602/Tea%20tree%20oil%20in%20dermatology.pdf https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1288602/A%20review%20of%20the%20toxicity%20of%20Melaleuca%20alternifolia.pdf Gsonnenf (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Try collaboration[edit]

...instead of reverting, per {{sofixit}} Explain yourself and add material to improve things, don't try to bully other people into doing your work for you. Montanabw(talk) 04:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for disruptive and repeated tagging of articles, WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT behaviour. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  DP 10:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mark Marathon (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Seriously? Another poster persistently reverts my minor edits. He openly engages in tendentious editing by swamping the page with cite tags. He unambiguously breaks the 3RR which alone is supposed to result in an automatic block. He refuses to explain on the talk page why he has reverted my edits. None of this is even open to dispute. And when I report him in order to avoid an edit war, I am blocked and nothing happens to the other editor. And by coincidence this other posters is friends with two administrators. If this block remains and/or the other editor remains unpenalised you have simply proven what so many editors are saying: that being friends with Administrators produces favoured results on Wikipedia. So much for neutrality. I don't actually expect anything to change as a result of this appeal of my block. But maybe whichever Admin reads it might take a second to think about what happens here and what it does to Wikipedia content. As commonplace and blatant as this favouritism of Admins has become, refusing to even enforce the 3RR is something I have never seen before. That was always a bright line. Not any more it appears. So much for neutrality. Mark Marathon (talk) 12:05 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui  12:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

I've not seen your 3RR filing, nor do I intend to search for it. You're making accusations in your unblock that without proof are considered to be personal attacks - especially suggesting that I'm involved in some kind of friendship thingy. You'll need to carefully re-read WP:GAB and amend the above - look especially at wP:NOTTHEM. I would eagerly anticipate seeing your explanation for your brutal tag-bombing behaviour, and how it's NOT considered to be battleground and edit-warring behaviour (remember, if you added it and it was removed, you're NOT permitted to add it back or else you're edit-warring after only 2 edits). Your edit-summary that taunted someone to "suffer the effects" pretty much solidified the pointy/battle actions - you were intentionally forcing someone into a 3RR situation, which makes it non-brightline DP 12:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you please provide diffs that justify this block, since you haven't done so either in the block log or here, and you say at AN3 it was for something other than the edit war involving User:Montanabw? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The statement in the block log, and a very quick perusal of the recent edits are blatantly obvious. There's quite obviously no need to post individual diff's with a quick review of the last couple of dozen edits DP 15:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The last couple of dozen edits you refer to are mostly regarding the edit war on Rangeland initiated by User:Montanabw. But in the current AN3RR thread discussing the edit war at Rangeland you say, "I have just come across this after having blocked User:Mark Marathon for other reasons earlier this morning. This does not mean there's a boomerang in play, nor does it mean that this 3RR should be ignored as there may be other blocks required. As I have already acted on one of the parties in another manner, I will not investigate this report myself." So, if it's not for edit warring, what's it for? If it is for edit warring, why didn't you block the editor who initiated it?
In the block log you say, "disruptive and releated tagging of articles, WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT behaviour." Perhaps I missed it but I see no POINTY behaviour on Mark's part, though I see User:Montanabw splattering {{cn}} all over the article just to make a point. Tagging, especially restoring a well-deserved tag, is not a blockable offense, though repeatedly removing a long-standing tag and not taking the dispute to the talk page (as User:Montanabw did) is a breach of BRD and when done by an experienced editor is clearly bullying and disruptive. So, diffs of the actual behaviour that warranted the block, especially of the "tag bombing" you refer to earlier in this thread, and an explanation of why you didn't sanction User:Montanabw who did the actual "tag bombing", would be appreciated.
Regarding, "There's quite obviously no need to post individual diff's..." actually there is, when an editor in good standing asks you in good faith to explain your use of the admin bit. Sorry. It is an important part of the job. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Six times in six days, Mark Marathon has placed a {{fact}} tag on the sentence
  • "Rangelands support Australia's valuable mining industry ($12 billion/yr), tourism ($2 billion/yr), pastoralism ($5.5 billion/yr – cattle $4.4 billion & sheep $1 billion)".
Yet that section (Australia) has a reference at the end to Ecologically Sustainable Rangeland Management (ESRM), Austraia. That page contains the sentence
  • "Our rangelands support most of Australia's valuable mining industry ($12 billion/yr) and growing enterprises such as tourism ($2 billion/yr) yet the broadest land use in the Rangelands is pastoralism ($5.5 billion/yr – cattle $4.4 billion & sheep $1 billion)".
How can anybody who has read the reference request a citation for that sentence six times? That is despite edit summaries and even an html comment in the wikitext suggesting: <!--reference "ESRM" supports most of this entire section, read it-->. What has to be done to persuade Mark to read the sources and desist from spuriously adding these sort of tags? --RexxS (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
He didn't just tag that assertion six times, he tagged four other claims six times, too. And Montanabw removed them 6? 7? times. The edit war was over all five tags.
Though "spurious" can mean simply "plausible but false" it's other common meaning is "intended to deceive". I don't think Mark intended to deceive anyone here, do you? And you say "spuriously adding these sorts of tags": but only one tag was not justified. Mark was mistaken there. But not mistaken when he added the other four tags.
Mark should be more careful when tagging, and check the source at the end of a section, even if that source does not support most of the section, and Montanabw shouldn't just keep deleting {{fact}} tags without discussion when the tagger objects. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

For your information, Mark, RexxS here and User:Wehwalt at the AN3 discussion are old friends of Montanabw. There are cliques here. When one of a clique is criticised by or in a disagreement with another editor, members of their clique turn up as if by magic out of nowhere and begin a two minutes hate or if you're really threatening to their composure a hate week at you. Hence RexxS's use of "spurious" and his smearing your one mistaken tag over all five, and his "six times over six days" rhetoric. Don't take it personally, it's not about you. It's defending their own.

The editor who blocked you would have seen Montanabw's note on Mark Arsten's talk page wherein she snapped her fingers and demanded that one of her slavering poodles creep out of the woodwork and block someone who was annoying her. They've all got each other's talk pages on their watchlists, so a quiet note to Mark Arsten is actually a clarion call to all the mutual sycophants (mutual sycophancy? Is that an oxymoron?). But I love them all, really. And you will too, once you get the hang of things here. You can grow roses in this dung heap. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I would have seen what? Where? I do not have Mark Arsten's page on my watchlist, nor Montanabw's ... cannot imagine you'd think I would - I don't travel in their general locations. That's quite a bizarre suggestion DP 21:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. That was foolish of me. Sorry. And I don't think you're a cabalist, actually. How did you come to notice this, by the way? (I saw it on Mark A's talk page, which is on my watchlist from when he leaped to Wehwalt's defense the last time I was torturing him.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The situation this morning that led to the block? Oddly enough, monitoring "Recent Changes" I saw some rather nasty edit summaries. I stepped into my phonebooth, changed quickly, and flew on over. In the time it took me to review a whackload of additional related edits, this had escalated further and it cemented my initial analysis DP 22:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I still think that at least 4 of the tags weren't justifiable, given the ESRM source and the convention of leaving cites out of the lead (although I agree the content in the lead should be expanded and sourced in the body of the article). Mark's been around for almost three years now, so I would expect him to do due diligence on checking sources before asking for citations. As you imply, Anthony, it's a tough old wiki, so there are numerous loose groupings of editors who keep an eye on each others' talk pages. I must admit I didn't think of "intended to deceive" as a meaning of spurious and I apologise for giving that impression. I tend to use it as meaning "inauthentic", more like this. Still, Mark, once you get one of the tags so badly wrong, you can get into an argument where the other party can see you're wrong on that point and it becomes much more unlikely you'll arrive at a consensus. It's worth remembering that the {{fact}} tag has an optional |reason= parameter and the guidance at Template:Citation needed #Usage is handy to help you specify why you are challenging the verifiability of a given piece of text. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, 2 of them were clarification tags, and they definitely needed clarification - at least for me because they didn't make sense to me. And two of the three disputed facts were defining "rangeland" in a way that seemed weird (to me, but I know nothing about it) so expecting a good source seems reasonable to me. I agree with leaving inline citations out of the lede when the assertion is supported by a citation in the body of the article - but that was not the case here.
I really think Mark should be unblocked. I'm sure he's learned his edit-warring lesson by now. Haven't you, Mark? If somebody starts edit-warring unreasonably again, you'll take it to a noticeboard much sooner, won't you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tree-kangaroo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macropod (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Johnstons Creek (New South Wales) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • WhoWeAre/OurHeritageAssets/_item_view.cfm?hi=4570348 Johnstons Creek Stormwater Channel]Exhibition)]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • an accomplished speaker, probably chatting about the War and his "imprisionment" in Berlin.{fact}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Handling 'citation needed'[edit]

Hi, thanks for your efforts to improve the Tree article. Just to say, a citation needed tag is not a mandate for removal, just an indication that work needs to be done, and I'd indicated in my edit comment that I'd work on it. Anyway, no harm done, I've improved the text and added two citations.

The general point about citation needed tags is that they represent an undefined but not necessarily wrong situation: the text is unsupported, but may be correct (as this largely was) and requires attention. In this case, as in many others, just excising the uncited text leaves the article incomplete, weaker, and without an important bit of context (and a major wikilink).

Sometimes, excision is exactly the right action, as when someone has added nonsense, repeated something said elsewhere, made a libellous claim, and so on. That wasn't the situation here.

All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

My PO edits[edit]

Hello, these are the normal corroborative edits added to places in Australia. Thousands exist, so please desist from reverting. Cheers, Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't revert without discussing[edit]

Indeed. DID YOU DISCUSS BEFORE REVERTING MY EDITS?? YOU DID NOT. OMF Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Natural landscape, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wasteland and Parkland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Do not initiate another edit war on Natural landscape[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstafursky (talkcontribs) 11:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Mould[edit]

Following your sterling work on Tree (which I didn't always agree with but the end result seems to be good) I wondered if I might pick your brains on the article Mold. To me, as a non-expert mycologist, is simply a growth form of a whole range of fungi, and to categorise any particular fungi as a mould makes a whole range of presumptions including that there is a clear definition between what is and what is not a mould. I think that this article would benefit greatly from your acerbic brand of logical biological thinking. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   12:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sports image[edit]

I have started a discussion over on the Australia article's talk page. Interested to hear your input. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Replying to talk page comments[edit]

Please note that replying to comments made by other editors on talk pages by interweaving your reply into the middle of their post(s) is considered poor Wikiquette, as it disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to some, but it is virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow. I note that you've done this at Talk:Australia.[7] Could you please restore HappyWaldo's original post and refactor yours so we know what is being replied to? Thanks. --AussieLegend () 13:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Oversimplification[edit]

Hello, i see that you reverted my most recent edit on the article for Mexico in wikipedia. Can you explain to me how it has to be written so it is not oversimplified anymore? The study says that three populations (Germans, Mexicans and Turks) were found to have the caucasian specific allele as opposed to asian and african populations and the three were classified as caucasians. Anything else to add? Aergas (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ABHIJEET (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)