User talk:Markwpowell64

Welcome!

Hello, Markwpowell64, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

By the way, I loved your edit summary here. Cheers! SS✞^(Kay) 20:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Mistakes do occur during transposing of articles. Thank you. --Molestash (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

I really do not understand your editing. 3 months ago, you switched around the order of some nouns in a sentence that had stood in the article on Michigan for several years. I immediately changed it back, saying not an improvement. The fact that no-one saw fit to revert it back to your version is pretty much a tacit approval of that action. So today, you come and change it again, operating on some rule of grammar that apparently only lives in your head. The fact that you felt the need to add a parenthetical phrase to clarify why you did it should be indication enough that the way you chose to express it is awkward. You made similar edits on other articles, in some cases referring to other editors as stupid. Care to explain your actions? The two edit summaries in which you referred to other editors as stupid are more than enough to take you to ANI. I would like to hear why you are doing this first. John from Idegon (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I noticed the dispute at Michigan. I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other (the original alphabetical order was fine, size order is fine too but the parenthetical was no good) - I'm dropping a note because I don't think that calling out other editors by name, describing edits as "stupid", or offering sarcastic commentary in edit summaries is constructive or welcome. Other editors have commented on this before, and I encourage you, as they have, to go review WP:Civility. It's a better encyclopedia when we're not denigrating one another. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

November 2013

Hello, Markwpowell64. You have new messages at JohnInDC's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnInDC (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fustration

Listen Mate, if you can tone it down a bit, I'm prepared to support your edits: You do the factual stuff that you think is needed (a little or a lot, it is up to you) and, if you get frustrated, I'll do the jumping through hoops that is needed to gain consensus. It is a fact that Wikipedia needs you more than you need it but it is also a fact that Wikipedia editors don't need you - and Wikipedia needs them too. I just need you to acknowledge that they have feelings and tone down your frustration - we can get there in the end, it is just a slower process than most people anticipate. If you agree then I can start straight away, say at the Skype article. Tommy Pinball (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that rather than simply telling you what not to do, it may be helpful to suggest alternatives. The article and user Talk pages exist precisely to permit editors to hash out issues relating to the articles, be they factual, stylistic or something else. Edit summaries by contrast are a poor place to conduct discussions - they're too short and, in my experience, often accompany an edit that simply undoes the other editor's efforts. Next time you correct a factual error or clarify something in an article, confine the edit summary to a simple and dispassionate statement of what you did, e.g., "conform to existing Wikipedia article at (so-and-so)" or "clarify to indicate that development took place before Microsoft involvement". Don't slam Wikipedia, decry the ignorance of its editors, or include characterizations like "bizarre", "incompetent" or "negligent". Just make the change. If it is a sound change it will stand. If not, if someone undoes it - out of ignorance, or sloppiness, or reasonable disagreement - then start a Talk page discussion explaining, again in dispassionate terms, the change you made and the reasons you made it. If you want to, you can restore your edit with a pointer to the Talk page discussion you've started; whether you take that step will depend on lots of things like, whether the disagreement is purely factual, or rather one of style. Here too, assume the good faith of the other Wikipedia editors and undertake to discuss it with them as though they are adults, trying like you to make it a better encyclopedia, rather than as ignorant or willful children making a mess of a carefully-tended garden. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and collaboration works better when the participants address one another respectfully and patiently. Even when other editors seem incapable of or unwilling to understand even the most basic concepts. I hope this is helpful. JohnInDC (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really. It may be fun to be snarky and snide but it's really unpleasant for other editors and it's not hard at all to be, you know, nice. Why not? JohnInDC (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civility, redux

I'm reaching out to you again, Mark, because while your edits appear to be sound, they are accompanied - almost invariably - by gratuitous, exceedingly unpleasant commentary in the edit summaries, including insults of individual editors and the Wikipedia community in general. I've suggested a few times that you review WP:Civility for some background on why Wikipedia, as a collaborative, communal effort, functions better if its editors make the effort to get along and be respectful to one another - an effort which, to this point, you seem unwilling to exert. I now suggest it again, because your behavior - despite my attempts to draw your attention to this issue - remains well out of bounds.

This is not just a schoolmarmish request of a particularly thin-skinned editor. It's a community standard, and an important part of the way things work here. If you can't bring yourself to work within those standards, there is a risk - no matter how bulletproof your edits may be from a substantive standpoint - that you may not be permitted to continue to edit here.

Please give the page a look and respond to me here. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Markwpowell64. You have new messages at JohnInDC's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnInDC (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roland Emmerich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Patriot (film). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and competence

Hello Mark, and welcome back. I am sorry that your hiatus did not temper your incivility. You seem to regard it as a kind of badge of honor, though, so I suppose the rest of us will just have to endure it until (perhaps) it winds up getting you blocked. Meanwhile if you are going to take potshots at the incompetence of other Wikipedia editors you should probably take greater care to ensure that your own edits are executed correctly, as the foregoing message notes. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Markwpowell64. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Markwpowell64. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]