User talk:DarknessShines2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DarknessShines2 (talk | contribs) at 12:58, 24 October 2010 (→‎Off2riorob: @ Tony). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Quarles Edit

Mark, Trying to add a breaking news story to the Quarles page. Help me cite it, will you? http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2010/10/04/georgetown-candidate-for-state-house-arrested-for-reckless-driving/ http://pageonekentucky.com/2010/10/04/ryan-quarles-arrested-hands-it-to-hoffman/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.58.60 (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not add breaking news to a BLP, please post on the article talk page. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old user page

Hi Mark,

assuming you have changed your mind and want to come back under this name, I (or any admin, really), can restore your old user page. Just give me a wink. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Bugger i had not thought of that, can you restore it for me please stephan? just overwrite the new on i added, thanks mate. I had to come back under this name btw, nobody seemed willing to allow me a fresh start :( mark nutley (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I did what I thought needed doing, the log entry is correct, but the old revisions are not there. I'll try to find someone who know what they are doing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm again. Now it showed up fine. Maybe it needed a second to percolate through the data base. Have fun with your new old page (all the history is back, including your new version). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate, very good of you mark nutley (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oi

Mark, please take that issue and those users off your watchlist. The wiki is bigger than that, you can be part of the future, that is the past, leave it to the past, you know I have worthwhile work for you and you can be a quality contributor .. come fly free. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, were`s the work at? mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a area in need of contributors and you will learn a lot about the legal issues surrounding in the process, Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup - User:Moonriddengirl is available for discussion and advice. I would also like to get a little more involved in the issues, it is an area wikipedia needs more activity in. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do know Moonriddengirl :) she commented here when i was blocked for copyviolations. Well at least i have experience with it :). I shall take a wander over there tomorrow once i drop the boy off at school, thanks mate mark nutley (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Mark, Moon is always over worked and does a great job for the project, she is busy and burn out is an issue, if we ask her for a project she will have multiple options. - Ow, and welcome back. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, I see you have had a little start and introduced yourself to Moon, take your time with the copy vio issue and it is a very useful thing to learn, read the guidelines and then read them again, if you are in doubt ask me or moon, start with only the simple clear cases and if someone objects, then step back, revert and ask me or moon. There is a note on my talkpage, a good faith doubt as to if it is a good idea for you to work in this area after some previous copy vio issues, it is for this that I would like you to really read and understand the guidelines moon linked you to, and also as I said, start on the clear, simple cases and get those right first. Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Mass killing...

I am sorry you have missed it, but I have done so many times over and over. Some issues have been addressed but most haven't. The most glaring sign of POV issues was the active and ongoing debate on the talk page. Just read the archives for more details. (Igny (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It does not matter, the restrictions on the article say you must discuss any reverts you make, so will you? mark nutley (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, see here. (Igny (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Hello, DarknessShines2. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Origins of Common-interest development

Hi,

I created the article common-interest development as a split from Reserves for Common-Interest Developments. You can check talk:Reserves for Common-Interest Developments for some background on why, but essentially, all the text I split out was not about the reserves but rather about CIDs which oddly enough did not have an article on Wikipedia. The new article is not very good and needs a rewrite but the topic itself is notable and there are some references included that would an interested editor cold use to develop the article. Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright cleanup

Hi! First off I'd like to say thanks for helping out with copyright cleanup, as Moonriddengirl said there's always plenty of work to be done in this area. Since I'm the editor that usually goes through WP:SCV, you will likely see me adding some additional notes in addition to the ones you're leaving for the articles you're reviewing. Hopefully I won't make it feel too much like I'm looking over your shoulder, I just like to able to scan the day at a glance and see what still needs to be done or how things were resolved. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look over my shoulder all you want. I would rather you catch me making a mistake rather than a mistake going unnoticed. I hope to god i have not messed anything up today though as i just said on another talk page that i figured i had done ok :) mark nutley (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in looking over your work for the 4th, the only issue I noticed was with Dan Benjamin. You marked it as cleaned, but a good chunk of it was very close to the source except for the added references. Everything else looks just fine as far as copyright concerns go. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that`s what i get for being cocky i suppose :) Shall look far closer next time round, sorry about that mark nutley (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it takes some effort to pick out close paraphrases even when you're looking for them. I know I had lots of trouble picking out bits and pieces of problematic material mixed in with clean when I started doing this. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I ran across what I believe is another issue :/ You cleared this version of an article, compared to this source. Could you compare the last sentence of the article (in the version I linked to) to the last sentence of the source and work your way backwards through them both and see how close they are when you look at it phrase-by-phrase? VernoWhitney (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki etiquette

See here. Please note that it is not a retaliation to your recent actions, but your disruptive behavior has to stop. (Igny (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Austin Volk

Many thanks for fixing the Austin Volk article. It gets frustrating wwith the bots. I have a love/hate relationship with the bots. Thanks again-RFD (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems mate, glad to have helped. Hope to see you expand a bit on the article, that guy looked like he had an interesting life mark nutley (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a paragraph about Volk wearing his navy uniform one day during the riots hoping to bring about stability and negiotations. Do you think this article could be DYK material with this as a hook? Many thanks-RFD (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what DYK is :) but i think this can be a damn good article yes mark nutley (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see

Here AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see too

Here

(BTW, I'm never sure about using first names vs surnames - the rules of etiquette seem to have changed regarding this - I meant no offence) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None taken mate, son`t sweat it mark nutley (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

If any of my TP stalkers see this can you please watch Chakri Toleti for a bit. A new editor is having trouble navigating and figuring things out so i`ve been trying to help him along. I am hoping with my last edit summary he will figure out how to get to the talk page. I have to go out and won`t be back for hours though and i sense he is getting impatient so if he does manage to post on the talk page i`d appreciate someone taking a moment to help him, thanks mark nutley (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, I'm watching :) Acather96 (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks man, If you see him mess up just try to help him along, he seems a little confused on how things work here, thanks again mark nutley (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiiii

http://movies.rediff.com/slide-show/2009/sep/16/slide-show-1-south-interview-with-director-chakri-toleti.htm

This link indicates that Chakri toleti has acted in few movies as a child artist

Chakri toleti did not had in person interview with any daily news paper so what kind of citations you want??? the above link in english is not a citation????you want a citation in spanish or german or italian???

This system is ridiculous if an administrator dont like something then you guys mark it as Vandalism???? so if any one looks for Chakri toletis personal info they look for wikipedia right???

But you guys abuse the contributors like me like this when we add genuine info with genuine intension???

now with above reference(in the above html link) can i add chakri toletis personal info and career as actor???

If i cannot add and if some other person adds it you will allow??? if an administrator adds it u will allow??? is this not vandalism and abuse by administrators???

(Rocktruly18 (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Continued:

I just added career information to the article. I have rewritten the career article and have added new sources and citations in external links. Please dicuss with me before you make any decision. (Rocktruly18 (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Communist stuff

When you gather sources for these articles could you bear in mind that other editors may object to the use of non-academic sources, such as a book by Brian Crozier published by Transaction Publishers. Theories published outside the academic mainstream are fringe and there is no need to use these sources when there is extensive writing in academic sources. TFD (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I`m not really fussed if you object to the use of non academic sources, as the sources are finewithin policy. mark nutley (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you not limit your research to academic sources? It would avoid a lot of disputes in writing articles. TFD (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to limit our sources based on your likes and dislikes, i will follow policy as you ought, there would be less disputes if you did not declare reliable sources neo conservative and fringe when they do not happen to agree with your POV, we are meant to remain neutral and dispassionate, i know this is not always easy but we can`t discard a source just because you don`t like the publisher mark nutley (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never opposed using any peer-reviewed article or any book published by a university or academic publishing company, regardless of the political position of the writer. My only objection has been to the use of polemical works that have undergone no fact-checking and are ignored by the mainstream. Note that you would have trouble establishing the notablity of fringe views. But academic writing contains a wide range of views, and there is no reason why we should ignore it for fringe sources. TFD (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is your problem, just because a book was not printed by an academic publisher does not make it fringe or not reliable and you need to stop pushing that. I follow and will continue to follow wp:rs as should you. For instance Transaction Publishers been around since 1962 and specializes in social sciences books and journals Brian Crozier is a historian and is a Distinguished Visiting Fellow on War, Revolution, and Peace of Stanford University's Hoover Institution and you actually think this would not be a good source? mark nutley (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ramrods (punk band)

Hi. Thanks for notifying me of the deletion proposal. However, I had absolutely nothing to do with that article - except in moving it from where it was previously, at The Ramrods, to where it is now, at The Ramrods (punk band). I did that in order to create The Ramrods (instrumental group) and turn The Ramrods into a disamb page - but, in the process, I left behind the history of the article on the punk band here. I don't know how to rectify my mistake, but you may want to notify the creator of the original article, User:Zoinksjeepster (who seems not to have made any edits in the last year). Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i`m trying to sort it but am unable to open most wiki pages for some reason, everything is taking forever :o( mark nutley (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was having the same problem. Sorry for causing a mess! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Oh, yeah, the bot doesn't work anymore, does it? And, whether you believe me or not, like I said on the article talk page, I wish you the best of luck finding really positive reviews of The Jesus Dynasty. The author of the book which I quoted extensively describes TJD several times as "well-written", and some of the comments from Reichs could be seen as positive, but, like I said, I didn't omit anything of any substance that I was able to find, other than wire-service duplications and really minor mentions. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, i see not reason not to :o) but really, get another bot :o) mark nutley (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, you know I'm really not that interested in the TJD article, right? It is the fact that it is being used as one of the primary sources of Ebionites which caused all this to happen in the first place. But, given how much material I have on the book, I guess it can't hurt to work on the article itself. John Carter (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if your not that interested then no worries, i had assumed you were sorry if you feel i backed you into working on it mark (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't mean that. But, like I said, considering I already have virtually everything I can find about the book, I may as well make it as good as possible. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Michael has asserted that all comments from Witherington's book are unacceptable for inclusion in the article The Jesus Dynasty on that article's talk page, and citing your earlier comments on the subject on the TJD talk page, after refusing to address the reliability of the source on the Talk:Ebionites page and insisting that the discussion take place at the TJD talk page. Please comment with your own opinions. Thank you. For what it might be worth, I believe that at least to me there is clear evidence that Ovadyah is, basically, an SPA who seems tied to a barely notable Sacred Name movement group which claims to be Ebionite, and that Michael has been made subject to edit restrictions for a year regarding this topic in a previous arbitration. John Carter (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

Sorry about the typo with your name, mark. :( I could claim it was just my erratic one-finger typing, but I wonder if it was a subconscious slip? Actually, I quite liked Muttley, with his sniggering as Dick Dastardly's plans went wrong - "Curses, foiled again!".

Anyway, I'll correct it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nark Muttley? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No he got my first name right :o) Andy i was not offended i thought it was funny, reminded me of primary school, 6 year old`s have not got the best imagination when it comes to nicknames :o) mark (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Surfacestations for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Surfacestations, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surfacestations until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Austin Volk

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You are being discussed at arbitration and may reply [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#mark_nutley]. TFD (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 RR

You have broken the 1RR restriction on Mass killings under Communist regimes. ([1], [2]) Would you like to revert yourself? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I`m sorry? Your asking me to revert in a BLP violation? Well, NO. if you wish to complain that i will not revert in your BLP violation look to the section above and join the cool kids at the party mark (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Doug, a question though, i began my block on CC articles quite some time ago, does this count as time served or does it start from today? mark (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too tired to think straight, best ask on the arbcom noticeboard talk page so everyone can see the answer. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. T. Canens (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for responding at the talk page of The Jesus Dynasty. It would be my hope that, perhaps, you can continue to watch it. I don't think I currently have the exact links to the databank articles on me, but will be getting them over the weekend. I hope that they are not removed once added. There may also, at some point, be a challenge to them. If that is the case, I expect I shall have to find a neutral outsider to be sent them from the hosting servers to be able to verify the material I add is from them. But, thanks again. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Appeal

The only way to appeal this is via e-mail? Well that sucks, the block would have expired before it got sorted. So much for blocks being preventative not punitive, the usual pile of bollocks, typical. mark (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hang in there man, [several] others agree may agree the block was an error. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are very few acceptable excuses for violating a bright-line edit restriction. To do so more than once is a bit worse... BigK HeX (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only did it the once, the third was a blp violation. A mistake over a few hours leads to a one week block? that is punitive mark (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't follow very closely, but I don't recall you referring to your actions as a mistake or accident ... I could well have missed it though. My quick skim of the issue gave me the impression that you stood by your actions pretty stridently. Dunno... BigK HeX (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Mark, sorry to see you blocked again, you really do need to stay away from those arbitration articles', while you are blocked I have a small job I would like looking at, are you interested, I can mail you the details if you are, shouldn't take more than a two or three hours going through some contributions and making a report as to the edit patterns? Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure mate fire away, i am home most of tomorrow mark (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mark, bit late but there is no real rush, better a decent look and a detailed report. I have mailed you. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Could someone be so kind as to revert this sock please [5] mark (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done VernoWhitney (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers mate mark (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff for Communist terrorism

[1] [2]


  1. ^ Schwab, Gail M.; Jeanneney, John R. (30 June 1995). The French Revolution of 1789 and its impact. Greenwood Press. p. 293. ISBN 978-0313293399.
  2. ^ Andrew Silke (24 August 2004). Research on terrorism: trends, achievements & failures. Routledge. p. 206. ISBN 978-0714653112.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FClimate_change

This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. --TS 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob

With respect to this comment, you may have missed the context that the precipitating action was an edit war involving Off2riorob's repeated insertion of dodgy material at William Connolley, for which he has now received a very strong warning under the climate change discretionary sanctions.[6] [7].

To fully observe your "Remedy 3" topic ban it would be wise to step away immediately. I will remove your comment. --TS 12:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will do no such thing. I am commenting on a proposed sanction on an editor. I am not commenting on a CC article at all, thank you mark (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take it to WP:AE and see what the view is on this. --TS 12:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do, until such a time as clarification is given i expect you to unstrike my comments mark (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DarknessShines2&oldid=392588750"