I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review your recent response in "Talk:The Gore Effect". This is a complete reversal of the position you have steadfastly held to throughout this discussion and I can't help but believe you have either misread or misunderstood the preceding comment. Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to know if he's still under 1RR restrictions for CC articles? If so, he's violated it. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it expired, given the amount of reverts he has been doing lately, it should have been permanent, he is always edit warring mark nutley (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, re Priyanka Nair, sticky prods are for unsourced articles not poorly sourced ones. It takes a reliable source to remove a valid sticky prod, but it only takes a link that supports something about the subject to prevent an article being tagged in the first place. In the recent RFC I didn't quite get consensus to broaden sticky prods to articles "sourced" from Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn and Utube - IMHO all rather more worrying than IMDB. ϢereSpielChequers 17:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? one external link to the IMBD, not what i would call sourced :) mark nutley (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's why it has the {{BLP IMDB refimprove}} tag - so no-one's saying that it is a properly sourced article yet. But the stickyprod process was developed for totally unsourced articles, and with some concern that it would be stretched and applied far beyond the totally unsourced BLPs that it was developed for. ϢereSpielChequers 18:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok mate, i shall pay closer attention hence forth, still hard to believe one external link is enough though mark nutley (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd agree it's an odd setup, and as I said I've tried to tighten that bit. But you can ignore external links that don't mention the individual. ϢereSpielChequers 18:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marknutley, would you agree to accepting a voluntary Arbcom sanction now, so that ArbCom will no longer have to vote on your remedy? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a six month withdrawal from all CC related articles. mark nutley (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marknutley, why did you revert cited information here? Also, I assume your reference to me as a "sock" was simple carelessness rather than a serious accusation... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No i believe it was a sock, my rational was in the edit summary. It was wrong and not NPOV mark nutley (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marknutley was probably referring to the edit that immediately preceded yours. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i was, sorry boris if you thought i was calling you a sock mark nutley (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be "wrong" if it's cited to a reliable source? There are many other sources available for the same information, including a Master's Thesis from a major American university. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It`s wrong because the weblogs awards polls more votes than any other online poll. It is wrong becuase it is not bloody conservative (why must you people always label stuff conservative) it was wrong because it was not written in a NPOV and it was a sock which did it mark nutley (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are multiple reliable sources that refer to the blog as "conservative." I'm curious as to why you object to that. Do you think "conservative" is a pejorative term? I certainly don't. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, we really should be having this conversation at the article talk page so others can comment. I'll copy it over there. Again, sorry for cluttering up your user-talk page. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has been filed against you here.Guettarda (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t think i am allowed to comment over there given my withdrawal from the CC related articles. However i think you will find i did not break the sanction i was under, all the sources in the article i moved to mainspace were from the MSM and from reputable publishing houses mark nutley (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, yes, but this] is MSM? Not to mention the entire article is extremely slanted, still. Why is it that nearly every example you choose to include is about pro-AGW exaggerations? Yes, I realized that you've got the lead set to include ONLY exaggerations of the effects of AGW - you don't think that's essentially a pure POV fork? Come on, if someone put together an article with only exaggerations from sceptics you'd be going ballistic. Ravensfire (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don`t care. I`m done with CC articles mark nutley (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really believe that in the long-term - you've put too much time in the area, and you're obviously extremely passionate about it. Be that as it may, there's a comment on the arb PD page that I think you should sit back and consider for future articles. Can't remember who said it (it was someone on the other side though), but it's something I've noticed as well. Many of your articles have lots and lots of quotes, and this is a really strong example of that. I know I commented on this months ago when I did an initial review of the sources, but it's still there. I'll pose you this question, and ask you to look at some of featured articles - Is an article about an abstract concept comprised mostly of quotes encyclopediac? + :::I really don`t care. I`m done with CC articles mark nutley (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Obviously, my view is that it's not - you're sharing the views of various people, but you aren't sharing concrete information. You could probably take the article, keep the lead and maybe one or two other sentences and use nearly every ref to support the basic concept without the quote farm) Ravensfire (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, saved me adding it for Collect! --WGFinley (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worrys mark nutley (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse other editors of making personal attacks because they disagree with your opinion; such an accusation may be considered a personal attack in itself and I removed it with an explanatory note. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying i am misrepresenting sources is a PA, i am curious as to why you did not remove other editors accusations of my making PA`s for writing "your kidding"? I won`t revert your changes but i respectfully ask you to not edit my comments again, thanks mark nutley (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading and understanding WP:NPA, Mark; "You're kidding" is in no way a personal attack. I have no intention of modifying your comments, but given the already-hostile environment on that talk page, I removed that part of your statement because it was an unfounded accusation and therefore a potential violation of WP:NPA. Per talk page guidelines, I made sure I replaced it with an explanatory note to maintain context. The other comment which you referred to as a personal attack was "you should read what policy says about misrepresenting academic consensus", which was not an accusation, it was advice to read the policy linked to in the statement, and it was valid, IMO. You need to be very careful about misrepresenting academic sources per WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and others. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You're kidding" is in no way a personal attack. Yes i know, so tell me why you have not removed the accusations that they are? And if you accuse me of misrepresenting sources again i shall get very cross. I have not misrepresented any sources so stop saying i have. mark nutley (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)In any case, there's little more to say regarding the comment I removed, please just refrain from making such accusations again. Any further disputes regarding content should continue on the article talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no such thing, and I am not making accusations. If you treat all advice given to you as a personal attack, you're unlikely to be able to contribute constructively to the project. You should ensure, since you are involved in a very complicated debate, that you are familiar with all relevant policies, such as those I have stated above, and that your arguments are based on these policies, not on your own point of view. This discussion can continue on the article talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also with regards to the "you're kidding" comment, I only saw that comment in passing and didn't see anything stating that it was a personal attack; I can only act upon what I see, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't make your statement any more acceptable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I have broken the wp:3rr. I'm new to this but this rule is completely obvious. Please can you let me know how I can raise the material in question for arbitration. I've responded to every question on the talk page by one editor keeps insisting on reverting the article. NotSparxent (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned him as well, please refrain from edit warring in the future, seek consensus on the talk page, if it can`t be reached do an WP:RFC mark nutley (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this for arbitration by emailing the arbitration list rather than picking a particular arbitrator as I wasn't entirely certain where to go. As stated on the discussion page I don't object to the content as it is factually correct but selective in detail. Sparxent or NotSparxent has indicated by actions that they have intimate knowledge of the organisation and accused the Sparxent organisation of hiding behind a web of companies (see my talk page), is making thinly veiled threats to continue to publish additional information should I undo edits designed only to put the business in a negative light. I created this article purely because its presence was required to be listed on the PC Power Management article because of a comparison table which I felt was not viable because it meant vendors would be editing with a conflict of interest. As of 7th Sept the Sparxent account was created and the edits began. Only when called on the fact they were pretending to be Sparxent di a new account NotSparxent get created. Whoever is doing this is not coming completely clean on their motivations and this is certainly not being done to assure the quality or accuracy of the article. The user account sparxent was created and edits made within 10 minutes indicating this to be a premeditated act and the account name used most probably to make it look like an official edit. A little more honesty from this person wouldn't go amiss. I'd rather not be involved in this situationMgmcginn (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you need to create an article to add something to PC Power Management? mark nutley (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history on that article. Simple reference list was replaced by a comparison table and then notability for inclusion in the table called into question; in other words, get an article or be deleted. We do work internationally and are well-known in this field, but are certainly not like a Microsoft or Oracle where lots of independent articles would be written about us. We specialise and therefore would be a significant vendor for consideration but others with arguably less of an offering would be included due to the natability definitions. Not saying I agreed with it being this way, just did what it seemed the others insisted had to be done.Mgmcginn (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the change of plan. Appreciated. Mgmcginn (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably won`t have long till another editor tags it, good luck mark nutley (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to [PC Power Management]. I can see there has been a discussion (to put it mildly) about which products should be included in the comparison table. Personally I'm for including as many as practical. That said I know there will be big arguments about what is notable or not. I noticed you've added a reference to a press release for one vendor. I'm not saying that vendor isn't notable but as general rule does a self-promoting press release doesn't establish notability?Hnobley (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was one of two refs i found, a press release while a primary source was printed in united business media which is a reliable source. I am unsure as to why some editors on that article seem intent on removing certain content, unless it is to promote their own products over another, whic his obviously not on. As a completely uninvolved editor to that article it seems that any PC management system whic his reasonably well known can go in that list mark nutley (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even go there! I totally agree - the article seems to be a battle ground. Thank you for your contribution.Hnobley (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored for now. It's pretty spammy, so it needs a bit more work than just adding refs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can I use FMD [1] as reliable source for magazine covers of living person, a photomodel? `a5b (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, if you have worries about sources ask at the WP:RSN reliable sources notice board mark nutley (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm not clear about [2] - what am I missing? Isn't it in [3] which says "He said also on the agenda was an appeal from the party's sole MP and former leader Motsoko Pheko, who was expelled from the party last year following allegations of irregularities in his dealings with party funds." Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, your right it was in there, sorry about that mark nutley (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was worried that I'd missed something. Dougweller (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Aorist#Protected II. — kwami (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want User talk:Radagast3, not my talk-page. But looking at the edit history of the article Radagast was working on in August should answer your question. If you can encourage him to stand up to admins successfully, you will have improved Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to find a source for a filmography other than IMDb.com. The truth is that there is virtually no other source, and IMDb.com is generally accepted as valid for that purpose. Should the pages be deleted just because they lack other elements? How can I save them in this case? Thank you. LoveActresses (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no mention of them in other sources then they are not really notable enough for wikipedia, sorry mark nutley (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As arranged with you and Errant(tmorton166), (the two mediators in Libertarianism), I have created a brief section on Ayn Rand for Libertarianism.

Alas, this section (which took some considerable time and effort, because it was my first ever substantial edit of a Wikipaedia article) was immediately vandalised by User:Snowded. Indeed, I didn't even have time to fix a few citation errors and return to Talk:Libertarianism to ask for some community feedback before it was removed. Snowded gave me no notice of his intention to remove the section. He provided no explanation for his removal at the time. He has refused to acknowledge that I did it with the consensus of the editorial community of the Libertarianism page, and with the encouragement of you and Errant.

And people wonder why tempers flare in Libertarianism? Their pettiness is beyond ridiculous. BlueRobe (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had already seen it and was looking into her work a little more, she certainly deserves a short section, perhaps you can cut down what you have added? mark nutley (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not devoted to the section that I have created, but, it was concise and well referenced. I would like to hear what the editorial community has to say before I amend it. Isn't the whole point of talk pages? BlueRobe (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on the talk page was NOT to include a section but possibly add a few sentences (some of which are already there), so it's very clear that the claim by BlueRobe above is false. Mark, you are the more experienced editor, you might want to advise BlueRobe on this, it might help calm things down a bit. Explaining WP:BRD would help as well --Snowded ^TALK 07:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already commented on the talk page lets keep this there please mark nutley (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are now reinserting text against consensus and in defiance of WP:BRD (the text was only inserted this morning). This is a form of edit warring so I suggest you self revert and discuss - also read the link I put on the talk page to the prior discussion which did not support the inclusion of a section. If this carries on the discussion will move elsewhere, either as a 3RR report to to ANI. You have a lot of experience of this sort of thing so I do think it is beholden on you to provide some advise to editors like BlueRobe and to set an example. --Snowded ^TALK 07:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and please do not consider yourself a mediator if you are reversing other editor's edits. TFD (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD i was trying to mediate by stopping any edit war by cutting the text down in scope. And i am still trying to mediate with a compromise on the article talk page which one editor has agreed to and you say the sources are not wp:rs, even though they are from books by reputable publishers mark nutley (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit and this edit are both reverts (you even put "rv" in the edit summary) of two different editors and are not mediation. TFD (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what they are, in fact i said it in my previous reply to you, and i reckon trying to stop an edit war by offering compromise text on the article and on the talk page is mediating mark nutley (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be a lot better explaining WP:BRD to BlueRobe and setting them an example by proposing changes. Particularly here as BlueRobes statements about having a consensus and being asked to insert the text by another editor are simply false claims - a quick read of the talk page would have show you that. --Snowded ^TALK 09:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD and Snowded, it was arranged with Errant and marknutley that I would work on an Ayn Rand section. There was consensus for the inclusion of Ayn Rand content (the first consensus I have experienced during my weeks as a regular in Talk:Libertarianism). Why are you so desperate to stop inclusion of the most prominent Libertarian philosopher of the 20th century? This is beyond ridiculous! BlueRobe (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the temporary loss of the image for Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Mark. I wasn't sure how to reinstate it with a new name. As I understand the situation, it needs a new title, as "unstoppable" has been taken for an album cover and a related article. --Alan (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, Mark. I have put the image in again. Let me know if you would like me to anything more to it. --Alan (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mark. As this article has survived AfD, it now needs to be rewritten from scratch. In its current state, it's an undisguised piece of advocacy and makes no attempt to apportion due weight to differing points of view. I expect considerable pushback. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? -- Rrburke (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be ready for socks and edit warring :) But it certainly needs a total rewrite, i can make a start on it tomorrow perhaps mark nutley (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some links to English-language sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camilia Shehata Zakher. There may have been more published since that post. I'll have a look around. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Mark. I'm appending some links to a few sources that might be useful. If I find time tomorrow, I'll try to draft a rewrite. If you beat me to it, that's fine too :) -- Rrburke (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14].

Hi, Mark. I have a draft on the go (at User:Rrburke/sandbox) which I'm editing as time permits, and which you're welcome to edit it if the spirit moves you. Perhaps to avoid tripping over each other we can just leave the draft there until it's ready to go live. Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's gratifying. As for this, is there a term for an objection that's probably technically in the right but doesn't really matter a flaming damn? "Vexatious pettifoggery"? Nishidani got it right -- Rrburke (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, simple fact of the matter is the guy who brought it to ani has a bee in his arse about me for some reason, it`s all a bit sad really mark nutley (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey -- I feel like I accidentally tossed you in a pot of boiling water. All sorted out now, I see. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess I thought it's slightly harder to take offence if someones uses the sentence "I am a X". But you know on second thoughts I might be over-reacting to what is a pretty mild word. Iota (talk)

Mark, while I appreciate your stance use of the word mick is not really appropriate in this forum - intentional or otherwise. I'd strongly recommend avoiding the term in the future :) for sanities sake. Casual readers, and usually even involved editors, have no ideas of the background and ethnicity of editors here - so it is impossible to put a term in context. Stick to neutral language if possible. :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall henceforth, but i will not have my comment removed. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with it, and i and the irish people do not need anyone to take offence on our behalf, we are capable of doing that ourselves. mark nutley (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to discuss this matter further in this discussion thread at ANI. TFD (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for WP:NPA on User talk:Marknutley[15]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

DarknessShines2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Were`s the personal attack then? That is not a personal attack, it is fact. And a three day block for saying a guy who brought me to ani has a bee in his arse is ridiculous. What happened to being able to speak freely on your talk page? This is a bad block, please unblock me now.

Decline reason:

The personal attack is obvious - you're clearly attributing a negative behaviour/demeanor to someone with whom you are in dispute. Typically, it might be a 12hr block - however, your block log is as long as my - well, it's long. Blocks are escalatory in nature. Because of that, there's a clear need to say "enough is enough". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:18, 21 September 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.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a personal attack here. A "bee in the arse" is an expression meaning someone is angry, upset, or otherwise extremely motivated. I find it outrageous that admins regularly look the other way when people they disagree with are calling things ranging from "slimy" to a "lying bastard", but this utterly inoffensive remark rates a 72 hour block? Clearly an abuse of admin privileges Fell Gleaming^talk 22:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, still waiting to be unblocked, i suspect however it is not for saying someone has a bee up his arse. More a late hit from the recent ani mark nutley (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:NPA "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Good day. Toddst1 (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good day to yourself todd and bwilikins as well, please look at the following diffs and the ndecide if the comment i made on my talk page is on fact a personal attack or merely an observation. I offer to mediate a conflict on an article, this is TFD`s response to me. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] look at those and tell me tfd does not have an issue with me mark nutley (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and have you referred to other editors as "commies"? Have you claimed global warming to be a hoax? Have you shown yourself to be less than objective in your editing? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true, i have never called another editor a commie, were the hell has that come from? And i have never said global warming is a hoax either, so were did that come from? mark nutley (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I dont condone Mark's attitude there was NO personal attack and at least one other editor in the AN/I case has come to the same conclusion that I did. Bad block and I'll open an AN/I case to review this. Block me for saying this if you want- but shame on both Todd and Bwilkins.Camelbinky (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I was even involved in the ANI case, probably did not even read it. I have big shoulders, and have no relationship to the history at hand (as far as I recall). The decline was simply based on the evidence at hand. Go ahead, ANI then. Don't forget to notify me. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, didnt inform you, didnt plan on it either. You obviously, as I figured, saw this here. Frankly your unblock request was wrong. 72 hours for saying someone else had a bee in his bonnet? (different word, but American equivalent) Come on. I have to ask, seeing as how I've seen you decline three or four unblock requests- have you ever said yes to an unblock request? If you havent, or its a very rare occurance, then there is a serious problem and I ask you stop reviewing unblock requests.Camelbinky (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Outside opinion: this would be a ludicrous block, were it not for this editor's previous history; and that history reveals a combative and provocative nature, indicating that restraint rather than passion should be guiding his interactions with other editors. However, I doubt that a block was necessary for use of strong language, because blocks are preventative and not punitive, and the language wasn't that excessive IMO. All parties are advised to "cool it" and have regard to the risk that your previous history may play against you. I'd reduce this block to "time-served". Rodhullandemu 23:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Um, believing that global warming might be or is a hoax contributes to blockable offenses? I think someone might want to reword that perceivable absurdity.   Thorncrag  23:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't the reason for the block, at least not stated, and it shouldn't be assumed. Rodhullandemu 23:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, I'm sorry; this isn't a case of AGF, it's a case of quite possibly giving the wrong impression that a user was blocked for, or a block review being declined because the user holding differing opinions. I assume it was not and am merely pointing out that it could very possibly and reasonably could be perceived in that manner based on the wording of the comment.   Thorncrag  23:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't do conspiracy theories here. I see no evidence of any ulterior motive. Rodhullandemu 00:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't do conspiracy theories here? What does that even mean in the context of this discussion? If this were even really true then this, this, this, and a whole host of other articles would not be on Wikipedia... No, someone believing something is a hoax is not something to hold against them, which is what you now seem to be suggesting as well. And further, while we as a general rule try to keep hoaxes from appearing on Wikipedia, simply asserting that something is a hoax whether validly or invalidly in your mind is not itself unacceptable. Obviously if someone's zealous crusade to tendentiously edit articles on climate change calling it a hoax is disruptive, but that is a distinction which has not been made in this discussion and that is my entire point. On the other hand, if yall are okay with suggesting that someone who suggests it is a hoax in relevant discussions is a valid contributing reason for declining a block request, then my objections are moot and that's a whole different story.   Thorncrag  00:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You failed to mention how this block specifically relates to your post. The block has been determined; anything else belongs in a different topic. Please clarify. Rodhullandemu 00:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sure thing, I don't mind spelling it out! BWilkins, as the initial reviewing admin, in reply to Marknutley above stated: "Have you claimed global warming to be a hoax?". This strongly suggests it was used as a basis for the block review which, as you pointed out, it probably wasn't, but it sure sounds that way which would hopefully be undesired.   Thorncrag  01:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I see that now, but it came after the decline of the unblock, and formed no part of it; TBH, I don't see how it refers to the blocking reason, or unblocking, so is irrelevant except insofar as BWilkins other interests; that does not concern me, but may well belong elsewhere. If you think there were ulterior motives for the block, they do not concern me. Rodhullandemu 01:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • ...WOW... I wasn't accusing anyone of anything, only pointing out that it sounded bad and might want to be re-worded.... geez. So noted.   Thorncrag  01:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Just in case nobody notices Strange Passerby blanked a load of stuff as an ip the nwhe nhe logged in did it again :) [21] mark nutley (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does that got to do with anything? Have you never heard of an edit conflict? Dd you even read my apology and explanation for the blanking? This is an astounding assumption of bad faith. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC) (This edit was originally reverted as it accidentally removed a post by another use; am restoring it now that I'm at a PC. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• You are unblocked. 1. Your block seems to have attracted little support on WP:ANI; 2. Your block was apparently largely based on your previous history, which, to be honest, isn't complimentary to you, rather than the edit under discussion, which was on your own talk page, and in that context seems to me to be excessive. 3. I am not convinced that your block was strictly necessary to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, and this appears to have an element of being punitive rather than preventative. 4. Least of all, this block has generated more heat than light, and is detrimental to the collegiate atmosphere that we try (despite all the evidence otherwise} to encourage here. 5. That does not give you free rein to express your opinions here without regard to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If you are not happy with this analysis, please feel free to disagree, and I will happily reinstate the block. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I shall refrain from colloquially inserting bees in peoples arse`s in the future :) mark nutley (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or not :( i am still blocked :) mark nutley (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to [22] you are not. 66.127.54.226 (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well i just tried to edit again but am still getting the your blocked message :( mark nutley (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was an autoblock in place: try again, it should be cleared now. TFOWR 08:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yipee it works again :) Thanks guys. mark nutley (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you probably think the warren report was a hoax also? haha welcome back, i doing an investigation one of the admins, it appears he is making decisions to push a pov. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...here.[23] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, obviously i was not providing the drama he requires so he seeks a pal to help him out, quite sad really mark nutley (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of one month for copyright violation on Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History. Vsmith (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appears seriously unwarranted. The text I see was paraphrased, and not a copyvio at all. Had it been modified any further from the original, someone would have filed an action for misrepresenting the source. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Vsmith is not a neutral admin in this issue-- he has edited this article before, as well as contributing to the talk page. Secondly, there is no copyright violation in that text. To retain the accuracy of the statement, phrases such as "organic molecules" and "fossilized remains" need to be left untouched, nor can such short fragments even be legally copyrighted. The expression itself was changed substantially. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Appalling. An Admin involved in content issues should not block and even more so not without clear chapter and verse as to the alleged violation. However, when citing text from a published work, it is imperative to clarify that the work is being cited, with appropriate citations. Works in progress may occasionally appear to be such violations until sources are cited, but paranoia is not acceptable. Request handled by: Rodhullandemu Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thank you mark nutley (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I`m still blocked, the auto block thingy :), fell did you have an edit conflict just then? My last post has vanished into the ether :) mark nutley (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting to be a habit... try now, autoblock should have gone. TFOWR 23:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two highly unwarranted blocks in as many days? Do the admins involved have a prior relationship with WMC? It's all rather very strange. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, working again, i kinda hope it does not become a habit mind :) mark nutley (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@FellGleaming: I was starting to wonder about this myself.   Thorncrag  23:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not get paranoid lads, i`m sure there not all out to get me, just some of them :) mark nutley (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just the ones that haven't found you yet? :) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was certainly a case of plagiarism, whether or not it gets into copyright violation is a bit sticky.

Making trivial changes – replacing In 1936 with Seventy years ago, fossil with fossilised, presumably with presumed to be – but keeping the exact same sentence without explicitly indicating (with quotation marks) that you are copying another writer's words is emphatically still plagiarism. If Marknutley is unable or unwilling to avoid such extraordinarily close paraphrasing (or outright copying) in the future, he can and should be blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark. I don't think we know each other. I was interested in this; I think I see what you are getting at, but I wondered if you could possibly reconsider your comment as there are quite a few folks commenting there (me for example) to whom that comment wouldn't apply. Thanks for any attention you can give to this. --John (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries john, i have clarified the statement, let me know if it is not clear enough mark nutley (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have made an outside view on the RFC, in strictest terms you can't do this because are are involved in this dispute. I'd perhaps suggest that you switch it to an "involved" view or something like that :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How am i involved? I have not been in any dispute with Blue, i thought that was what it meant? mark nutley (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well your involved on the Libertarianism page, that is the dispute. It's not a biggie, but people do tend to moan about things like that :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i`ll change it to involved to try and head off the moaning :) mark nutley (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]