User talk:Marky48

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Marky48, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 04:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Reuben Colburn looks brilliant now. Thanks

Keep up the good work. I've put in a category, but I'm not sure whether it is the correct one, but it was the closest I could find. Dr Debug (Talk) 22:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Yanksox 19:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mirrors

FYI, due to the GFDL and other policies, anyone is free to copy Wikipedia articles so long as they give attribution. The website you found is one such mirror. For more information, see Wikipedia:mirrors. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I realized that after I posted it thanks. I've added a very pertinent link and summarized it like the reporter I am trained to be.Marky48 00:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks on talk pages

Responses by JulesH will be deleted on sight. He is not welcome here. The record is clear why.

Please leave my talk page and don't come back all messages will be deleted.Marky48

Cease communicating with me here.Marky48 11:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No. You don't get to issue me with instructions, sorry. I'll warn you one last time. As per Wikipedia:Removing warnings, "users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments [on their user talk page] at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally discouraged/prohibited from removing" (emphasis mine). You have removed the following warnings from this page:
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. JulesH 23:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. JulesH 23:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to remove warning messages from your talk page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JulesH 07:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If you remove any further warnings, I will pursue this issue with an administrative user, which is likely to result in a block preventing you from editing wikipedia. JulesH 23:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I consider this an attack but I will let it stand. Marky48 00:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mmmmmmediation is swell, yes.

A big hello to you mister Markey48. As you may already know, user:Mavarin submitted a mediation request at the Mediation Cabal involving the articles disemvoweling and Barbara Bauer. Discussion will be taking place at talk:disemvowdling involving the conflict. I sincerely hope that everyone is happy with the end result of this discussion, and I personally will remain neutral and understanding of all opinions while we sort all of this out. Kindness and understanding, regardless of the situation, is always the best way to settle dispues, which can sometimes spawn meaness and grumpyness in its participants. :)

A message will be sent to all parties involved. As a general guideline for being nice, it's usually a good idea to assume good faith, be nice, and keep a cool head while discussing such sticky situations. Thank you for your understanding. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake {Prophesize) 08:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy

You posted for an advocate to assist you in a dispute on Disemvowelling. I am prepared to assist you in this matter, but I need to know what you want an advocate to do. If you wish to pursue this process, contact me on my talk page or reply here. Grobertson 20:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Although you haven't accepted the offer, I should warn you that you will strongly prejudice your position if you continue to edit Disemvowelling, as it may be seen as a violation of the WP:3RR. This rule is as close to an absolute as Wikipedia gets. Violating 3RR may result in a block and will harm your chances of success in dispute resolution. Thanks, Grobertson 21:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks, but my first question is this: it's only me that can't continue to edit? What about the other guy who keeps removing my edits? Is he just innocent by proxy? I'm asking because this whole is is starting to spell bias to me.Marky48 23:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've accepted the last edit by mavarin provided the rest of my work isn't erased later.Marky48 00:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you setup your email account so people can email you?

I'll accept the newest edit by Zack too.Marky48 04:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically, nobody is ever allowed to "revert" (i.e. change a page back to a previous version, or make an edit that removes content) more than three times in 24 hours. Not you, not him, not nobody. It's a rule there to stop pages being changed indefinitely.
What else do you want to see change on the article? Grobertson 08:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well they did it too is what I'm saying, and I had no knowledge of this rule. The article has been completely rewritten by a fourth party Zack preserving enough of my language that I'm washing my hands of it. The same two ganged up on me at the Barbara Bauer entry over a link that is now defunct since it left the owner JC Hosting in a bad light. That was my beef at the time, yet they won by repeatedly adding it back in. The users are JulesH and Mavarin. This is chronic partisan buying by forum members at Making Light which banned me for persistence in voicing my opinion. It looks like it's over but you want to take a look at that page as well. Thanks.Marky48 15:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] legal threats

Re [1], legal threats are treated very seriously on Wikipedia, WP:NLT. I understand you've been incivil to boot. Future outbursts of either will result in a block. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

By whose authority? I've made no "legal" threat. I've made an "internal" action statement. Banning can go both ways. I also understand "uncivil" is in the eye of the beholder, and appears to be relativistic. I'm against that and so is the management, or so I would hope. I don't appreciate being attacked by groups deleberately trying to get me banned on a subjective technicality when the point of contention is I'm factually correct on the article editing process. Consensus doesn't mean throw the book at the dissenter. In addition the article is nominated for deletion now. I'm for that. How does that fit the profile of those whom I'm fighting with here? it appears I'm right and they are not. Some are poor losers. I won't play kill the messenger. Correct is correct.Marky48 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying, If you can't stand dissent take a hike yourselves because I don't run from bullies. I fight them until they drop. You'll be prosecuted. is not civil and it certainly sounds like a legal threat, if not a physical one. If you don't want to be blocked then avoid such behavior in the future. Instead do your part towards developing a collegial editing atmosphere. -Will Beback 05:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Mark, nobody is trying to get you banned on a subjective technicality. Nobody is attacking you. Some of us have warned you that if you continue behaving as you are, you run the risk. But so far, nobody has even gone so far as to make a formal complaint about you.
By the way, the article in question is not nominated for deletion. One of its categories (which contains only it, because the other articles that were in that category have all been deleted) has been. The article was previously nominated for deletion, but the consensus was that it should be kept. JulesH 07:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You're repeated "warnings" come off as threats. Apparently you are a literalist which is quite a naive position to take. Writers should understand metahporical statements. This is a gang up with me on the receiving end and has been from the start when you followed me here. I sounds like you mcan't understand language very well to me. You are attacking me over the article. Cease. The article could be nominated again, but I really don't want any part of this. it's an attack piece from partisans: you.Marky48 11:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't call me naïve. Don't tell me what I do or don't understand. I don't care what you say about metaphor, that's a personal attack. I have previously warned you about making personal attacks against other editors. And get your facts straight: I didn't follow you anywhere. I edited Barbara Bauer a long time before you did. I may have checked what other articles you were editing after seeing your bias against other editors there, and I'm glad I did, because that enabled me to discover your POV assertions and inaccurate information and personal attacks on others on an entirely different article. If you want to see a "partisan attack piece" it's that last edit I linked.
Here's another warning. The same comments I've made above about deleting warnings apply to this one, too:
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. JulesH 23:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've posted nothing inaccurately and find it is your edits that biased by personal feelings for the subject. Do not threaten me in any way or I will pursue charges against you for bullying through arbitration. Just because you call something an attack or innacurate doesn't make it so. Back off. Thank you. Marky48 00:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chill!!

Marky! We need to sit down and drink some tea. I don't even know what the beef is all about. We're here to cooperate and build an encyclopedia, so tone down your egos, please. You too, Marky. You've been incivil, you've threatened arbitration, you've made legal threats, and you're being very difficult, apparently. Is it worth it?

I am an administrator here, and I am basically ready to block you at the next outburst. Please - don't make me. Play nice. I will stop the behavior, if not with words, with a block. Talk me to about your issues please - and I can help you work them out. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's about time. As you can see from the above links posted accusing me a providing false information and vandalizing an article about a literary agent I'm under assault here over every edit. That's the beef from two related articles involving a blog Making Light and absolutewrite, an amateur writers forum. This gentlemen is a friend of the blog forum cited in the articles and has edited it with help from said blog member to defame an ISP provider. I objected and this is the result. I don't see how I should be blamed for standing up for my edits. In addition I've made no legal threats no matter who implies I have. "Prosecution" means what you are offering me to the other guy in this. JulesH. This is apartisan vanity forum article issue. They are members and friends of the aggrieved and I am not. It just doesn't pay to be right in a contentious issue with partisans like these. I'm out of patience. Please look into the issue and report back.Marky48 01:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I will look into the article history. Give me a day - because it's sleepytime in Jersey. Meanwhile, I must point out that wielding axes on necks has nothing to do with the Point of view of the article and everything to do with incivility, personal attacks, and legal threats. I'll get back to you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. As I've said the "legal threat" was metaphorical and meant "internally," not in the courts. I'm a law student myself as well as a biologist and journalist.Marky48 02:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please see my talk

- CrazyRussian talk/email 15:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You want to remove the article for Bias? As in, delete it? Normally, point-of-view issues are liable to cleanup, not deletion. You could nominate it for deletion, but I would strongly discourage that. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A Neutral POV clean up would suffice by removing all blogs connected to the issue. Thanks.Marky48 19:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modifying archived talk pages

Please don't modify archived talk pages. If you have something to say, please say it on the current page, not the archive, where it may not be noticed. JulesH 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That was where I was being discussed, but it can be linked if it happens again. I'm hoping for none of this to happen again.Marky48 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disemvoweling

Just as a head's-up, you're on the edge of violating the 3 revert rule. If someone changes the article again today, you won't be able to restore your version right away without running afoul of that rule. (No one person can revert more than three times in one day.) Please see my suggestion on the Talk page for something that might be a decent compromise - History and Spelling, but not Value, and especially not the link I put in that upset you so much. That was an error in judgment on my part, and I'm sorry. I was trying to source facts, not lead people to an attack on you personally, but it's better to leave out the whole section. And again, I'm sorry about your loss. Karen | Talk | contribs 04:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. Look these people will stop at nothing now. It's war. The management is going to have to settle it. Moreover, I can't find who is reverting it. I think it's calton whose comments were "uncivil."Marky48 14:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
  • Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
  • Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 03:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits on Barbara Bauer

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. JulesH 07:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert this three times. Do NOT issue commands concerning my edits. If this harassment continues, I'll file a comnplaint against the user JulesH. Kindly back off from issuing dictates to other editors based on personal self-interest in a rumor-based smear campaign. I'll not warn you again on this.Marky48 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did: [2]

[3] [4] [5]. You can't warn me not to issue you with warnings for violating site policy. JulesH 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I only count three. That one was on the 13th, the other the 14th. That would be two different days. Moreover, you are not an authority here. In fact it is YOU who continually argues with those who are and repeatedly inserts passages and links that violate policy. You will lose. I'll see to it. Now get the hell off my page and stay off.Marky48 23:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The first was at 14:32 on the fourteenth, the last at 04:20 on the 14th. That's less than 12 hours difference between them. This is a clear violation of WP:3RR, as was your latest edit, which is within twenty-four hours of the third edit and fourth of the reversions I listed above. JulesH 00:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Removing legitimate warnings from your talk page is considered to be disruption. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again.

Restored after another deletion. Don't delete warnings; I've warned you enough times over this. And due to the fact that you've ignored the warning and continued reverting Barbara Bauer, I've asked for administrator assistance Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Marky48_reported_by_User:JulesH_.28Result:.29 here. JulesH 11:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So have I. You're toast buddy. Get out and stay out.Marky48 11:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Ban

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Robdurbar 19:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"{{unblock}}" My changes have been discussed in depth. No minor technicality such as a revert within one minute of being legal will stand. What a juvenile schoolyard of inaccurate biased crap this place is under these attack circumstances. I've issued a formal complaint against the user JulesH. He's stalked me for months whining and disagreeing with every edit. His interests lie with the subjects of these articles as his page[[6]] clearly shows. Moreover, this block should only involve the article in question and not every one. That's a serious flaw in this system. On the other hand 8 hours is nothing really, but this is really splitting hairs in order to convict me and smacks of a concerted effort by a partisan group of editors on behalf of the articles and their friends, the false sources of the articles. Internet forums are NOT sources. Wikipedia should not be a rumor mill as Gmaxwell said.

"Furthermore, I'm having a difficult time figuring out what encyclopedic purpose reprinting this unsubstantiated non-notable rumor has... Wikipedia is not a gossip mill. It is not in our interest to undertake an attempt at character assassination. Because the majorty view in this discussion is against including this claim, and because I (as a totally disinterested party) find it distasteful, I will now remove it once more. Normally I would leave it in a bit longer while discussion continued, but since this is a potentially hurtful claim our default should be to omit it."--Gmaxwell 21:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC) This was the reference I edited and it was repeatedly reverted. He was dusted aside like piece of lint under the bed by this group. It looks like bullies can win around here.Marky48 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) And just that fast it's over. I would call that a shallow victory that paints the accuser in the dim light he deserves. Yeah you got me big time, by 1 minute.Marky48 04:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark: his removal was reverted because he was wrong. The majority view of editors on that article is clearly that the information should be included. The majority view of editors on the Deletion Review discussion of the article was that the information in question made the subject notable. A wide variety of users have edited the page since User:Gmaxwell removed the sentence in question and you started repeatedly removing it whenever it was reinstated, including two wikipedia admin users, User:Will Beback and User:Rebecca, neither of whom seem to see any issue with including the information, and both of whom seem to believe that the source I added in this edit, right back at the start of your campaign of reversions, is perfectly adequate for supporting the allegation. I fail to see why you have a problem with it. JulesH 11:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Something isn't wrong because you say it is. They edited other things not that one. And frankly I don't why Will, who is an administrator allows this innuendo to be included. It shouldn't be just because self-interested sci-fi wannabes say so. It was the cause dujour and the reason you started the article in the first place: revenge. This is not a rumor mill and YOU are making it one. That's a far cry from making Wikipedia better as you claim to be doing. You fail to see much of what I see, or do and just don't care becasue getting your biased way is the MO. That's why your editing history is on a narrow range of topics. This one. No surprise there on this end. Your victory is small and shallow.Marky48 11:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, me saying something is wrong doesn't make it so. However, the facts spoke for themselves. Gmaxwell commented that he had removed the claim because there was no consensus. It was reinstated because there was: of the 9 people who have edited Barbara Bauer over the last few days, only you and Gmaxwell wanted to remove the claim. 7 out of 9 is enough to establish consensus: the claim should be kept. That's what made what he said wrong, the fact that he was.

Why did Will keep it? Probably because it isn't innuendo; it's a documented fact, commented upon widely by many people, some of which are acknowledged as experts in their field. What more do you want? A proclamation from god that we're right? JulesH 16:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Two biased sources do not a consensus make here as the 14 to 7 defeat showed. He wasn't wrong and neither am I. The facts are it is alleged by partisans. That's not a done deal. Moreover the claim is a false cause fallacy. Facts on this matter are exactly what we don't have. Ad numerum is not consensus. It's a confederation of partisans and NOT MPOV. What part of that can't you grasp?Marky48 23:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russell J. York biotagging

I don't quite understand your question but my answer to "why is it a stub" is that the article doesn't cite it's source in a seperate section called Reference or Sources. To get to a greater status, you will need to find a picture for the article, add sections in order to help the readability, create a lead section and etc. The article also needs to cite its source and even find book sources if possible. This is an assessment in a nutshell, if you want more details or have any other question, just ask me on my talk page. Lincher 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK the source is his obit which was in there but someone took it out. I'll put it back. Also the sources are the US Military records. The military is cited for a reason.Marky48 11:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Silver Star Prum 1945.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Silver Star Prum 1945.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Even when other editors use unnecessarily confrontational language it's still best to avoid doing so oneself. In particualr, I suggest avoiding calling anyone a "shill" even if you think it is accurate. It only makes things more tense. Cheers, -Will Beback 01:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Will I know, but so do you: it's the same people from the same place to doing the same thing. I'm being defamed here. They are supporting a particular POV.Marky48 01:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you let it go. -Will Beback 07:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Given your history of warnings for incivility and personal attacks and the fact that you are attempting to blackmail another user into agreeing to mediation, I've blocked your account - since it appears this case is going to Arbitration, the block is only for 12 hours, so you may participate. Please do not harass User:Marmoulak; mediation is completely voluntary and not participating will not get him blocked. Shell babelfish 00:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

He'll get his at the arbitration where his edits won't stand. Insults can go one way around here from the violoator to the just. He'll lose.Marky48 01:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

A Request for Arbitration has been filed in regards to the failed mediation. As an involved member of the mediation, you have been named a party in the Arbitration request. Thank you for your time. ^demon[yell at me] 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you but as a result I've been blocked for so-called bullying. What a crock. Thanks for moving it along. It is with evn more vigor that I detest these violators thanks to this insult.

"{unblock|Trying get editors who continue to bias an article and make political attacks on other editors (Me) to sign a mediation request is not bullying no matter what this woman says who blocked me}}"

Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Shell Kinney for the following reason (see our blocking policy): persistant personal attacks and attempting to harass and bully another user into mediation, warned many times before Your IP address is 71.106.131.175.

Some examples of the weeks of insults and instigation from the other side: 02:24, 6 November 2006 Marmoulak (Talk | contribs) (rv, clueless editor.) 17:19, 6 November 2006 Marmoulak (Talk | contribs) (rv, POV pusher.)

These sorts of taunts and requests for mediatio get me blocked? Unbelelievable.

There are ways work out article problems - threatening another editor with being banned for touching an article or not agreeing to mediation isn't one of them. Wikipedia rules against personal attacks and harassment don't allow for this type of blackmail. Claiming that the person you were harassing also violated rules doesn't excuse your behavior. Threatening me via email because you didn't like being blocked is just going to make things worse.
Hopefully you can participate in the arbitration and resolve whatever conflict you're having. Shell babelfish 03:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You bet your bippy I will. And one more thing since you've accused me of "threatening you by e-mail" disagreeing is NOT a threat. I think all of you people are psychotic relativists. That's an opinion. That crack just bought you an administrator abuse charge. Well a quick check indicates there is no such thing, but there is under defamation law. Law is a whole different animal here so don't throw around defamatory accusations based on Romper Room renditions of what constitutes a "threat." Believe me no legitimate threats have been made here by anyone nor will there be. Forumization makes people weak-minded and overly timid in a confrontational world. This impedes disourse adversely. I assure you I will win on the merits should we ever get beyond petty personal characterizations. Marky48 04:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cool Down

Trust me, your not going to beat the system either way, but you can cling to your ability to edit by being less blunt. CJK 02:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Then the liars win. That's not my cup of tea but thanks for your concern. apparently from your somewhat more conservative view this place is such a left-wing shillfrest that there's no hope of objectivity? I can't abide that. Truth lies in the middle between the extremes no matter what either says. Revert the article. This clown will be refuted in arbitration. Marky48 02:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed your unblock request since the block has already expired. Mangojuicetalk 12:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on "What Mediation Is"

You said in the Request for Arbitration that:

The Iranian kid won't sign on to a mediation. What part of that is unclear? How do we get mediation without enforcement capability? I'm afraid I don't follow this sort of pretzel logic. Perhaps someone could explain this angle to me?

Allow me to explain what mediation is. Mediation is a process in which several people have an issue (be it personal attacks, article disputes, policy disputes, whatever) and they are unable to decide it on their own. Negotiations are stalling, and there is no way out. Therefore they come to ask for a mediator to help them settle the dispute (by either the MedCom or MedCab, in the case of Wikipedia). Now, in order for mediation to effectively occur, all parties must be in agreement upon doing the mediation itself. Otherwise, you're back to the original issue of no one being willing to budge. Also, the role of a mediator is not to decide who is right and who is wrong, or to take sides. The mediator has the role of helping to facilitate positive discussion towards a solution. This sometimes includes offering ideas for compromises, suggestions on how to change, or merely offering a different perspective on what's been happening from an outsider's view.

That is why no one can force someone into mediation. It is supposed to be a civil and peaceful process, and if someone is there against their will, then they won't work with others to solve the dispute.

Also, one cannot be punished for failing to join a mediation, for the reasons I stated above. The MedCom has no authority to hand out punishments or bannings on those grounds.

I know this isn't the right way to phrase it, but if you're wanting to "force" someone to deal with a dispute, and you feel they should be punished, then Arbitration is the way to go. However, the arbitrators tend to see cases for what they are, and could pick out fairly easily if someone's approaching them with the agenda to get someone banned.

Hope this clears up some of your questions about this.

On behalf of the Mediation Commitee, ^demon[yell at me] 20:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I find your accusation invalid. Sure I want a resolution, and if mediation won't work for that reason: problem user won't accept, then arbitration is indeed the road to take, but that'as not because of me. It's because of him. I signed and so did anyone else so don't put his on my head because that's a false cause. My only "agenda" is to unbias the article in question. That's what a good editor does. Until this is the norm this publication will contine to lag in credibility. Right now it's a patsy propaganda vehicle for partisans. What I see is a stodgily bureaucratic system where the guilty win favor with realtivists. I don't find this peaceful at all and it's not because of me that it isn't. I refute your reasoning.

To recap thus far they (the two arbiters) found your reasoning flawed not mine. But if he won't come to the mediation table how is it not valid for arbitration and what is the solution then?

My question is this: why can't a violator be held accountable? Why is the messenger getting killed here? Marky48 20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You personally mentioned to Marmoulak that "If you don't sign the mediation you'll both be convicted internally and banned. Sign or get the hell out" (diff). Now, perhaps it's just me, but that does show bullying and appears to be a personal attack. As you have been made aware of before, Wikipedia has policies against personal attacks which are taken very seriously. In response to your second paragraph, yes, I am well aware that the two of the Arbitrators have declined to take this case, however I did what is within my right as a member of the Mediation Committee. From the main page of MedCom (I've highlighted the parts I think are important...

If mediation fails, the dispute may be referred to the Mediation Committee's sister committee, the Arbitration Committee for binding resolution. The role of the Mediation Committee is explicitly to try to resolve disputes to the mutual satisfaction of all; it is not simply an intermediate step towards banning or a method of vetting candidates for the Arbitration Committee. Mediation must be an honest attempt on the part of all parties to resolve disputes; parties to mediations should understand that they will be given the opportunity to express any concerns they have, but mediation is not a court hearing, and mediators do not issue binding decisions. The decision to mediate, and to abide by the result of mediation, is voluntary.

Per Newyorkbrad's suggestion in the RFArb, I am looking further into your edits involved in the article in question, the Iran-Iraq War to help create a more clear picture as to what was going on. Also, in response to your question about what happens when Arbitration cannot proceed...generally, if there is a problem user and it doesn't go to Arbitration, then the community will deal with them on their own. If the community feels that a user should be banned, then they have that right, under the banning policy (see point 1 - Community Ban). And finally...you can "refute" my reasoning all you want. That paragraph in which you "refuted" my reasoning, all you did was state a collection of opinions. Refuting implies proving a point, and you can't prove a point through opinions (Refute: overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof Link). Perhaps you meant to say you "disagreed" with my reasoning, which I welcome you to do.
Respectfully, ^demon[yell at me] 17:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I understand that mediation is potentially ineffective and at the whim of the violator. I further understand that the system is set up to protect the violator from those seeking mediation. I am not the violator on NPOV in the article. On the contrary I'm trying resolve the dispute with an editor who guns down anyone who comes along trying to tone back the bias of the article. He's the bully, I'm the messenger. You seem to be confused on this matter based on my hope he would be banned if he continues to run roughshod over the consensus in this article as he has done. I wanted mediation and didn't get it. He was the only holdout. I wonder why?

Finally, you were too quick to leap to judgment based on my good faith efforts to persuede him to take his case to others. Don't attempt to divine my intentions out of context. You ignored the history that led to that sentence. Ultimately I want resolution not punishment, but lacking the former, yes, the latter should be possible. It seems like it actually is so I wasn't wrong. Arbitrators saw some evidence of incivility but thought your rejection reasoning was shallow. Defend it to them then and look at the issue. That said, he's starting to come around albeit reluctantly, but the bias here goes deep. The article is a quagmire and has been tagged by another editor.Marky48 18:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't claim to know why I make the decisions I do. You have absolutely no idea what was going through my head, and to claim otherwise is simply silly. I am tired of dealing with this dispute and dealing with you. I'll let others settle it. Please do not contact me unless it is for an entirely unrelated subject. Best of luck to you. -^demon[yell at me] 01:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And you can't divine what is in mine so thank God and Greyhound you're gone. Don't contact me for any reason. All the fish in the sea; with help this who needs enemies and all that. Marky48 02:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A warning

You need to be much more courteous. Fred Bauder 03:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

When will anyone show me some of that? The guy blamed me. I'm only the messenger reporting the problem. To reiterate, the problem isn't me. That is a sideshow. I thank you once more for signing on.Marky48 03:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disemvowelling

I reverted your deletion from Disemvowelling. The limitation on blogs is focused on their use as secondary sources. Here they are being used as primary sources in a justifiable, limited manner. More broadly, I urge you to avoid picking fights. In a community project it's important to compromise and to accept seemingly imperfect solutions. -Will Beback 20:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Then that's the way it will be. You'll find though that that user went to a mediator disconnected with this article, after stalking me, obviously, looking for revenge against me for questioning his edits. I suppose that's allowable depending who one is but frankly I'm not impressed the blatant partiality shown by the administrators here. Mostly we've agreed though and I know who you are, which also lends credence to what you say. Community or mob depends on who one runs with here. My patience for it is waning.Marky48 22:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iran-Iraq War/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk FloNight 00:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran-Iraq War

Hello Marky48 :-) I noticed that you stuck your statement on this RFAr case. You probably want to keep this case on your watchlist and follow its progress along. As with most RFAr cases, ArbCom will be looking at the actions of all editors close to the dispute. Therefore it is possible that your prior actions with this case may bring about Evidence, Finding of fact, or Remedies relating to you. I am noting this as it would pertain to any case, not based on the specifics of this case. Arbitration Committee Clerk FloNight 00:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm watching and hopeful someone else will get equal attention. I withdrew because nothing else pertinent to the case had been posted. I doubt they will since no ane has to show up whether it's official or not apparently. Marky48 01:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/User_talk%7EMarky48_8a6e.html"