User talk:Mk5384

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles

The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Mk5384, good luck, and have fun. ----Rrburke^ekrubrR 14:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mk5384 (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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]

Truth and verifiability

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]

Malcolm X

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]

Claude Choules

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]

Re:Sealand

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]

Avoiding 3RR in Allen Iverson

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]

Service Awards

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]

Bill Bruford

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]

User talk:OberRanks

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]

March 2010

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]

Blocked

- 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]

Bad idea to use an IP

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]

Not cool

[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]

Discussion on Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I

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:

Admit openly that all your actions were improper and give a broad apology to everyone who has commented on this discussion.
Voluntarily accept a one month block. During that month, do not make an edit of any kind or contact any user in any way
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.
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]

Reversed unnecessary escalation

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]

Blocked (2)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for restarting disruptive editing without establishing consensus, immediately after article was unprotected; enough is enough. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 14:44, 2 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 request

{{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]

still blocked

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]

Mediation

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]

Request for mediation not accepted

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.

Trombone player

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]

Focus on content, please.

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]

The Outlaw Halo Award is presented to Mk5384 for impressing the entire Wikipedia community by a complete change of attitude into an outstanting cordial and civil editor! -OberRanks (talk) 14:30, 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]

and back to the subject

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]

Sealand

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|

Prince Roy I

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

Screwjob

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]

Mediation Case

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)

Re/Talk Page

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

Dr. Heathen Scum

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]

Re:Evander Holyfield

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]

RE

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. Raa G gio (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]

Wulf Zendik

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]

Re:Evander Holyfield

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]

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

John Pershing Talk Page

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]

Courtesy note

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]

Sockpuppetry case

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

Preventative, not punitive

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]

Strange replying method

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.

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]

Administrators noticeboard

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]

Please stop reverting

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]

Pink Floyd

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]

[[12]]

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]

Blocked for two weeks

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]

unblock

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

Mk5384 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The user in question seems to think that they own every article concerning Pink Floyd. I am certainly not the first person to say this. Why am I the one being blocked?

Decline reason:

Unblock request does not address reason for block (see WP:NOTTHEM). Guy (Help!) 15:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

How about an impartial admin reviwing the request?

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

Mk5384 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is unbelieveable that Guy, who has just been waiting for something like this, would actually come here to review this. If you read comments he's made about me, that's not too hard to see. I respect Xeno, and I know they acted in good faith in blocking me. Still, I disagree vehemently with this block. And I am appalled that an admin with an obvious conflict of interest would rush over here to decline the request.

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblocking provided. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

{{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#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]

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: –xeno^talk

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]

The Wall

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]

Re: Living Medal of Honor Receipents

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]

Re: Lansdale Station

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]

Marooned

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