User talk:Mark Marathon

nominate

) 00:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Capparis lasiantha

DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorghum

Hi. May I ask why do you keep removing the manufactured sorghum example? Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it perhaps because you are uncertain that "massaggo" is sorghum? Because it in fact is (c.f. [1]). Please at least provide a rationale for the removal since you did not do so in either of your edit summaries. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eucalyptus cambageana

DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I award you this barnstar for: For being in 2 edit wars then coming back by making an many articles! IanMurrayWeb (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Glass is a liquid misconception

(Note: I'm listing this on the talk pages of all editors active at Talk:List of common misconceptions for the last two weeks).

I started an RfC on the "glass is a liquid" issue that caused the edit war leading to protection status. Your comments would be appreciated, so that we can build a consensus and avoid further edit warring. siafu (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Hi Mark! Thanks for helping out on Al-Ahliyya Amman University. I'm going to let it sit fo a bit longer before doing anything, but hopefully that will break the deadlock. Your help is much appreciated - when we get stuck in these sorts for two-way deadlocks, I'm generally not worried about which way we end up going, but we do need to go somewhere. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ahliyya Amman University

When you expressed your opinion, did you consider the section

WP:ABOUTSELF of the Verifiability policy? --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding the articles you’ve created or largely updated, including your great photos—especially thank you for all the your great photos added, some of them positively fantastic/lovely. If a chance, I’d love some more too, but don’t 'wanna' ask too much, as i appreciate the massive voluntary work already done of the photos you’ve made freely available to all. Just to let you have awareness of the especially glaringly missing photos of significant Australian Wet Tropics rainforests plants: Stockwellia quadrifida, Austrobaileya scandens and Gymnostoma australianum (etc.).

Anyway, to the point of this talk section;

Please, do you mind me updating the citations or external links to the Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants identification system that you’ve made in those articles? (About 26 articles I’ve counted.)

I have created a quicker, easier and more efficient template for us all to use. Please see and freely utilise it—the {{RFK6.1}} template. ——--macropneuma 01:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No response! I’m tired of waiting while my above message gets ignored. Good photos deserve good reference sources, well cited. ——--macropneuma 02:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, lets not get into a stupid edit war over this. A Google search for "desert oak" combined with either "Allocasuarina decaisneana" or "Acacia coriacea" will certainly bring up plenty of hits but this does not prove anything. Searching for "holden monaro" and "desert oak" gets hits on Google (interestingly the only one of those that specifies the species refers to Allocasuarina decaisneana). Referring to an authoritative text carries far more weight when it comes to an encyclopaedic work, and as it turns out I have found one to support your assertion - a 1986 version of Flora of South Australia includes desert oak among the names of Acacia coriacea, so I will add that reference. However we still need to mention that the name is usually applied to the Allocasuarina as is shown by most recent Australian flora guides, both on line and hard copy that I have access to. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please help me out by showing me where I claimed that a Google search for "Acacia coriacea" & "desert oak" comes up with no hit at all?

Would you also please point out where the relevant links from ANBG (searching ANBG for desert oak comes up with both species with the primary common name of A. coriacea listed as wirwewood), CSIRO (do you mean [2] which lists the trade name for A. coriacea as desert oak and the common name as dogwood?), Royal Botanic Gardens ([3] gives the primary commobn name as wirewood, ABRS (Isn't that ANBG? Are you referring to them twice?) are? They are not coming up in my searches, at least not on the first several pages.

As for search engine hijackers, there is no need to get sarcastic. And your assertion that the range of desert oak is negligible is interesting, if you compare [4] and [5] both species have ranges bigger than Queensland.

You will see in my citations of Jessop that I gave the page numbers so I will not repeat them. The precise quotes are as follows: "1. A. decaisneana (F. Muell.)L. Johnson, J.Adelaide Bot.Gard. 6:74(1982). Desert oak, Desert sheoak." thus listing only two common names and leading with desert oak, and for the acacia; "21. A. coriacea DC., Prod. 2:451 (1825). Wire-wood, desert oak, wiry wattle."

See also p41 of part 1, "The principal criteria used in selecting common names were that names should be those most likely to be widely known, helpful in indicating relationships,derived, where appropriate from well-known scientific generic names and including names used interstate even if not currently used in South Australia. It was also agreed to accept names currently used overseas and to exclude names used for unrelated species or likely to cause offence.

"Names (both generic and specific) selected by the committee are printed in bold."..."Those not selected by the committee are printed in italics."

Desert oak is printed in bold in the entry for decaisneana and in italics for coriacea indicating that the committee selected it as the common name for decaisneana and not for coriacea.

This discussion should really be placed on the talk page for coriacea so all interested parties can see it and not have to trawl through our respective talk pages. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kangaroo#Geographic or political locale. stillnotelf is invisible 17:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mark, for helping to improve Wikipedia and making it a nicer place to work by giving a

Could you please not remove sourced material from such a short article? Please take it to the talk page, wait for consensus and then make changes. My view for such short articles is that expansion is more important than getting every detail exact and precise. Do you disagree? Hopefully I have provided some clarification regarding the Brisbane Bushland program. It was just an example, more should be included. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Natural landscape, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wasteland and Parkland (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) 11:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: → http://austronesian.linguistics.anu.edu.au/historydownloads/Barton_etal_2012_QI_intro.pdf

Every large genus is faced with the choices of non-notable redlinks, bias in selection, or no mention of subordinate taxa at all. Isn't imperfect information better than no information these cases?Masebrock (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have created a section here to discuss images at the Green-head ant article. I have recommended using a non-cropped main photo in the infobox. Please try to come to consencus as desired. Thanks. ☺ Gryllida (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a new message in the section I linked above, please, take a look at it and the article, and respond there. ☺ Thanks! Gryllida (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've received numerous warnings about edit-warring in the recent past. However, I don't see that anyone has formally notified you that abortion-related articles are subject to a 1RR rule (that is, no more than 1 revert by any editor within a 24-hour period). You appear to have racked up three fairly quick reverts at sex-selective abortion. Going forward, please make an effort to respect the 1RR rule on abortion-related articles, as well as a greater effort to respect this site's policies against edit-warring in general. MastCell ^Talk 21:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit-summaries did not explain who is going to render the 3O. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mark, for your consideration to this matter. What you need to understand about your point of "verifiability, not truth" is the simple fact that NOT ALL sources and refs in the world agree with this dogmatic statement and wording and position that Greek Orthodoxy traces directly from the first-century apostles. It's NOT "verified" in that real sense. Also, as I said, those refs that "K" drummed up do not all say clearly what he thinks they said, and even if they do, those refs ARE NOT NEUTRAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS, as far as wording. WP is supposed to convey neutrality in tone, with things like this. This nonsense view that Greek Orthodoxy is right from the Apostles, and that "making the sign of the cross" was a practice of the Apostles is NOT EVEN CLOSE to "sky blue". It's ridiculous to even think that. No matter what refs say this (of course there are people who think the same way "K" does...that's a straw-man...), because we're to ignore accomplished writer and theologian Dr Robert Morey, who TOTALLY disagrees and disavows and rejects Greek Orthodoxy as ever being from the Apostles, or as even being Biblically Christian at all? Read Morey's book (there's a ref right there) "Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian?" As one of a number of examples. You think James White believes that Greek Orthodoxy is traced directly from the Apostles?

Again, this is NOT "verifiable" in the real total sense. Plenty of refs find the notion false, if not absurd. Is Wikepedia to ignore them, for "I don't like" reasons by a certain editor? And cherry-pick refs that suit K's own agenda and bias, for "I like reasons"? That's clearly against WP policy, against POV pushing, and against how WP is supposed to be very NPOV in matters like this. You don't see me putting in the article stuff like "Greek Orthodox believe they trace right from the apostles, but of course that's false"...do you?

I'm leaving and making the wording NEUTRAL AND UNBIASED. Dr K is not...and then desperately appeals to sources that back up his POV...as if that ultimately means anything on WP, especially if he ignores and disparages any source that rejects that notion, by calling it uhm "fringe". Fail. Let me ask you...Mark....is there something so terrible and wrong with saying "some historians believe Greek Orthodox trace directly from the apostles" or that "it is claimed by some that making the sign of the cross is from the first-century apostles"?? Is that a bad thing to word it neutrally? When so many people in the world (lay-people as well as professional scholars and writers) simply don't believe or buy that idea? I'm only interested in NPOV...in any article on WP...not trying to diss anyone or anything. And that's important. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My response to your comment on my page

I never said that those refs can't be used to make the general point or statement. That's fine. What you're not grasping or maybe just not understanding where I'm coming from (or the WP policy regarding this) now is that it doesn't matter how those refs word things, as those refs in question are NOT neutral encyclopedias, and those refs are valid to bring in (no problem) only as far as giving the point that "it's believed"...when dealing with cases like this. I know about "verifiability, not truth". I told you appreciated your time and attention to this matter, but now you seem to missing the point yourself, about simple NPOV wording...that's all. It's not about which ref can or can't be used, per se, to make the general point. But for WP to state dogmatically is another thing. Other refs (do you even agree with that), don't even come close to agreeing with the words or notion that "Greek Orthodoxy came directly from the first century apostles" or "making the sign of the cross was from the apostles" etc? I don't disagree that those refs can be used, but the point is neutral tone...and that WP is not to endorse one position like that, especial in cases like this. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pterocaulon sphacelatum may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:Pterocaulon sphacelatum flowers.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Flowers]]]

Thanks,

For instance, again, you honestly think, for example, that this notion that "making the sign of the cross" was something taken directly from the Apostles, when there's no real evidence for that...or when so many Protestant scholars (TONS of them) flatly reject that notion? That's NOT "undue weight". So, no, YOU'RE wrong on that. NPOV is important with this. Period. As I said though, already, I won't be on the merry-go-round forever on this. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How so, when there are SO MANY people on earth who either doubt or outright disavow the Greek Orthodox claims? In Wikipedia we don't go by people on earth, we go by reliable sources. The names you have supplied are those of baptist apologists. It is their calling to oppose the other denominations including the Orthodox church. These are not reliable, neutral sources to determine the historical details of any Church which they oppose by definition. You have to do better than that and find neutral, academically accepted, reputable sources which evaluate the history of the Orthodox Church. Nothing "circular" about that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark. The dispute, as you know, is not about the sign of the cross. It is about the weasel modifiers "are believed to" regarding the Apostolic origins of the church. The sign of the cross is a red herring, which I never raised and didn't even know it existed in the text until it was raised by the other user. In any case, as you can verify by reading the article, in the article text the use of the sign of the cross is qualified by the verb "claim": Among these traditions are claimed to be the use of incense, Liturgical Worship, Priesthood, making the sign of the cross, etc. so it is not stated as fact as claimed in the section above. But again, the issue is not with the sign of the cross but with the weasel modifiers and I want to reiterate and make clear that I am not interested in the issue of the sign of the cross but only in the issue of the weasel modifiers. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Mark. Thank you for removing most of the weasel modifiers. However the last one "are believed to be traced back" still remains. It is supposed to read "can be traced back": [6]. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, Mark, you never addressed (you're not always around on that Talk page), the specific matter of dogmatically stating that "making the sign of the cross" can be traced to the Apostles. You somehow seemed to believe that that was also sourced, even though it actually wasn't. The simple fact that NONE of the sources put in (and there quite a few) actually stated that specific thing. I did not remove that statement, but I placed a citation needed tag only for the "making of the sign of the cross" statement...as not one of the refs given support that specific sentence, as even admitted by Dr.K.... NONE of the sources actually say that...for that specifically. Not sure why you thought that. You were going on and on to me about "if it's sourced it does not need to be stated neutrally" and "it should be stated as fact if it's sourced", but it seems you never bothered to actually see (unless I missed something somewhere in any of the refs) that the "making the sign of the cross coming directly from the Apostles" is not really supported or specifically stated in refs. Hence my placement (at least) of the citation needed tag. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to Mark and Dr. K. I know that the discussion is pretty much over, and some decisions were already reached. Though it's arguable that it should have been decided just by two editors, who may be over-reaching a bit with the notion that all reliable sources in the world state the Greek Orthodox position of "tracing directly to the Apostles", regardless of the clear fact that that notion has been denied or challenged by respected theologians and writers. But because Mark and Dr. K. insisted I provide refs that give the analysis that Greek Orthodoxy (or Eastern Orthodoxy) does NOT trace itself directly from the Apostles, etc, I pointed (and even linked) to Robert Morey's book "Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian". As one example. I already knew that that would pretty much be shooed away as "not reliable" or maybe even "fringe". Which is why I never really bothered elaborating Morey's words, or his book...in any of my comments. I figured, why waste time, when it the quotes would be dismissed anyway? But I figure why not just finally give you a direct quote from his book, instead of simply citing the book generally. Here's one of many quotes that challenge or deny Greek Orthodox claims to Apostolic origins.

Quote:

"The historical reality is that Eastern Orthodoxy does not represent the Early Church that came into existence form the preaching of the Apostles."

(Robert Morey, Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian?, pages 20-21, 2007)

Also, a ref and quote that you MIGHT consider “less fringe”...

“...the claim to unbroken continuity is appealing....We would contest this claim on a number of fronts. It appears to at least some of us that this claim does not adequately account for the substantial differences between ancient practice and Byzantine innovations and embraces an unrealistic ecclesiology.”

(Michael Horton, Three Views On Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, 2004) Gabby Merger (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gum tree, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spotted gum and Ghost gum (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) 09:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark,

I understand you were mislead recently regarding the effectiveness Tea Tree Oil. I am going to be making some changes to the wiki based on two recent Pubmed secondary source review articles. These articles reflect that TTO is effective in treating infections and is safe to use externally with certain precautions (e.g. as any medication). Here are the articles if you'd like to review them and participate. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1288602/Tea%20tree%20oil%20in%20dermatology.pdf https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1288602/A%20review%20of%20the%20toxicity%20of%20Melaleuca%20alternifolia.pdf Gsonnenf (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...instead of reverting, per {{sofixit}} Explain yourself and add material to improve things, don't try to bully other people into doing your work for you. Montanabw^(talk) 04:25, 6 March 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Seriously? Another poster persistently reverts my minor edits. He openly engages in tendentious editing by swamping the page with cite tags. He unambiguously breaks the 3RR which alone is supposed to result in an automatic block. He refuses to explain on the talk page why he has reverted my edits. None of this is even open to dispute. And when I report him in order to avoid an edit war, I am blocked and nothing happens to the other editor. And by coincidence this other posters is friends with two administrators. If this block remains and/or the other editor remains unpenalised you have simply proven what so many editors are saying: that being friends with Administrators produces favoured results on Wikipedia. So much for neutrality. I don't actually expect anything to change as a result of this appeal of my block. But maybe whichever Admin reads it might take a second to think about what happens here and what it does to Wikipedia content. As commonplace and blatant as this favouritism of Admins has become, refusing to even enforce the 3RR is something I have never seen before. That was always a bright line. Not any more it appears. So much for neutrality. Mark Marathon (talk) 12:05 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:37, 6 March 2014 (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've not seen your 3RR filing, nor do I intend to search for it. You're making accusations in your unblock that without proof are considered to be personal attacks - especially suggesting that I'm involved in some kind of friendship thingy. You'll need to carefully re-read

wP:NOTTHEM. I would eagerly anticipate seeing your explanation for your brutal tag-bombing behaviour, and how it's NOT considered to be battleground and edit-warring behaviour (remember, if you added it and it was removed, you're NOT permitted to add it back or else you're edit-warring after only 2 edits). Your edit-summary that taunted someone to "suffer the effects" pretty much solidified the pointy/battle actions - you were intentionally forcing someone into a 3RR situation, which makes it non-brightline DP 12:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Would you please provide diffs that justify this block, since you haven't done so either in the block log or here, and you say at AN3 it was for something other than the edit war involving User:Montanabw? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in the block log, and a very quick perusal of the recent edits are blatantly obvious. There's quite obviously no need to post individual diff's with a quick review of the last couple of dozen edits DP 15:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last couple of dozen edits you refer to are mostly regarding the edit war on Rangeland initiated by User:Montanabw. But in the current AN3RR thread discussing the edit war at Rangeland you say, "I have just come across this after having blocked User:Mark Marathon for other reasons earlier this morning. This does not mean there's a boomerang in play, nor does it mean that this 3RR should be ignored as there may be other blocks required. As I have already acted on one of the parties in another manner, I will not investigate this report myself." So, if it's not for edit warring, what's it for? If it is for edit warring, why didn't you block the editor who initiated it?

In the block log you say, "disruptive and releated tagging of articles, WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT behaviour." Perhaps I missed it but I see no POINTY behaviour on Mark's part, though I see User:Montanabw splattering {{cn}} all over the article just to make a point. Tagging, especially restoring a well-deserved tag, is not a blockable offense, though repeatedly removing a long-standing tag and not taking the dispute to the talk page (as User:Montanabw did) is a breach of BRD and when done by an experienced editor is clearly bullying and disruptive. So, diffs of the actual behaviour that warranted the block, especially of the "tag bombing" you refer to earlier in this thread, and an explanation of why you didn't sanction User:Montanabw who did the actual "tag bombing", would be appreciated.

Regarding, "There's quite obviously no need to post individual diff's..." actually there is, when an editor in good standing asks you in good faith to explain your use of the admin bit. Sorry. It is an important part of the job. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Six times in six days, Mark Marathon has placed a {{

fact

}} tag on the sentence

• "Rangelands support Australia's valuable mining industry ($12 billion/yr), tourism ($2 billion/yr), pastoralism ($5.5 billion/yr – cattle $4.4 billion & sheep $1 billion)".

Yet that section (Australia) has a reference at the end to Ecologically Sustainable Rangeland Management (ESRM), Austraia. That page contains the sentence

• "Our rangelands support most of Australia's valuable mining industry ($12 billion/yr) and growing enterprises such as tourism ($2 billion/yr) yet the broadest land use in the Rangelands is pastoralism ($5.5 billion/yr – cattle $4.4 billion & sheep $1 billion)".

How can anybody who has read the reference request a citation for that sentence six times? That is despite edit summaries and even an html comment in the wikitext suggesting: <!--reference "ESRM" supports most of this entire section, read it-->. What has to be done to persuade Mark to read the sources and desist from spuriously adding these sort of tags? --RexxS (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't just tag that assertion six times, he tagged four other claims six times, too. And Montanabw removed them 6? 7? times. The edit war was over all five tags.

Though "spurious" can mean simply "plausible but false" it's other common meaning is "intended to deceive". I don't think Mark intended to deceive anyone here, do you? And you say "spuriously adding these sorts of tags": but only one tag was not justified. Mark was mistaken there. But not mistaken when he added the other four tags.

Mark should be more careful when tagging, and check the source at the end of a section, even if that source does not support most of the section, and Montanabw shouldn't just keep deleting {{

fact}} tags without discussion when the tagger objects. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The editor who blocked you would have seen Montanabw's note on Mark Arsten's talk page wherein she snapped her fingers and demanded that one of her slavering poodles creep out of the woodwork and block someone who was annoying her. They've all got each other's talk pages on their watchlists, so a quiet note to Mark Arsten is actually a clarion call to all the mutual sycophants (mutual sycophancy? Is that an oxymoron?). But I love them all, really. And you will too, once you get the hang of things here. You can grow roses in this dung heap. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have seen what? Where? I do not have Mark Arsten's page on my watchlist, nor Montanabw's ... cannot imagine you'd think I would - I don't travel in their general locations. That's quite a bizarre suggestion DP 21:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That was foolish of me. Sorry. And I don't think you're a cabalist, actually. How did you come to notice this, by the way? (I saw it on Mark A's talk page, which is on my watchlist from when he leaped to Wehwalt's defense the last time I was torturing him.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The situation this morning that led to the block? Oddly enough, monitoring "Recent Changes" I saw some rather nasty edit summaries. I stepped into my phonebooth, changed quickly, and flew on over. In the time it took me to review a whackload of additional related edits, this had escalated further and it cemented my initial analysis DP 22:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that at least 4 of the tags weren't justifiable, given the ESRM source and the convention of leaving cites out of the lead (although I agree the content in the lead should be expanded and sourced in the body of the article). Mark's been around for almost three years now, so I would expect him to do due diligence on checking sources before asking for citations. As you imply, Anthony, it's a tough old wiki, so there are numerous loose groupings of editors who keep an eye on each others' talk pages. I must admit I didn't think of "intended to deceive" as a meaning of spurious and I apologise for giving that impression. I tend to use it as meaning "inauthentic", more like this. Still, Mark, once you get one of the tags so badly wrong, you can get into an argument where the other party can see you're wrong on that point and it becomes much more unlikely you'll arrive at a consensus. It's worth remembering that the {{

fact}} tag has an optional |reason= parameter and the guidance at Template:Citation needed #Usage is handy to help you specify why you are challenging the verifiability of a given piece of text. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I really think Mark should be unblocked. I'm sure he's learned his edit-warring lesson by now. Haven't you, Mark? If somebody starts edit-warring unreasonably again, you'll take it to a noticeboard much sooner, won't you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tree-kangaroo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macropod (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) 08:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Johnstons Creek (New South Wales) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• WhoWeAre/OurHeritageAssets/_item_view.cfm?hi=4570348 Johnstons Creek Stormwater Channel]Exhibition)]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Douglas Grant may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• an accomplished speaker, probably chatting about the War and his "imprisionment" in Berlin.{fact}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, these are the normal corroborative edits added to places in Australia. Thousands exist, so please desist from reverting. Cheers, Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. DID YOU DISCUSS BEFORE REVERTING MY EDITS?? YOU DID NOT. OMF Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Natural landscape, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wasteland and Parkland. 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) 08:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstafursky (talk • contribs) 11:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following your sterling work on Tree (which I didn't always agree with but the end result seems to be good) I wondered if I might pick your brains on the article Mold. To me, as a non-expert mycologist, is simply a growth form of a whole range of fungi, and to categorise any particular fungi as a mould makes a whole range of presumptions including that there is a clear definition between what is and what is not a mould. I think that this article would benefit greatly from your acerbic brand of logical biological thinking. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion over on the Australia article's talk page. Interested to hear your input. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that replying to comments made by other editors on talk pages by interweaving your reply into the middle of their post(s) is considered poor

Hello, i see that you reverted my most recent edit on the article for Mexico in wikipedia. Can you explain to me how it has to be written so it is not oversimplified anymore? The study says that three populations (Germans, Mexicans and Turks) were found to have the caucasian specific allele as opposed to asian and african populations and the three were classified as caucasians. Anything else to add? Aergas (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

Hey there, I see you has answered some 3O posts in the past year. It's good to know that there are still active volunteers there. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, I apologise for not responding to your communications, but time has not been much with me of late and you gave no indication of being in any hurry. I did however receive an RFC to a talk page at Talk:Metacompiler and took a quick look to see what it was about. I doubt I would have responded yet, even if I had the time, but after a short while I spontaneously thought of you. I certainly have never seen the like. So even with the subject matter beyond you, I would be interested in your reaction after you have sampled the talk page and cast an eye over article itself. I am at a bit of a loss what to do about it, or in fact whether to do anything, including giving my reaction to the RFC. All the best, JonRichfield (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is not the way to claim a statement is invalid. ~ R.T.G 20:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mark - it looks like you've left a fair few AfD comments today without signing them. I saw that you spotted it for one of them and went and signed it; just thought I'd leave you a friendly note to say that I think I've sorted all of the others for you, and asking you to be a little more careful in future. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the result of the complaint at

Darkness in El Dorado has also been getting some edits that don't seem quite right to me. I haven't had a full chance to dig into them, but hope to soon and hope you might be able to chime in soon too. Thanks --Pengortm (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've now exceeded 3RR on that article, so please take a rest. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, I was reading Heath when 122 °C (252 °F) struck me as a bit hot even for a desert, and upon checking sources it seems that it's indeed more like 50 °C (122 °F). Digging into the history I found this edit of yours where it seems you wanted to swap units, but forgot to adapt the values, so I've taken the liberty of doing so myself. Just checking if that was indeed your intention. Cheers, benzband (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the user seems to have actually provided sources for the claims. Best, --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice photo of Melaleuca nervosa habit - thanks Mark. Gderrin (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mark. I see that you undid the category cleanup again at

Thanks for picking up my mistake. I offer an excuse for my stupidity: I am pretty sure that the image is of Callistemon viridiflorus and I got the wires in my head crossed. I guess you know that when Lyndley Craven moved the callistemons into melaleuca, there already was a Melaleuca viridiflorus, so Callistemon viridiflorus became Melaleuca virens.

I wonder if you agree with me that the image is of Melaleuca virens, formerly (according to Craven) Callistemon viridiflorus? It was so labelled by the uploader (although he/she has mislabelled https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Callistemon_sp.-IMG_9178.JPG]).

Gderrin (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mark,

I note your comments about duplicate articles on my talk page, however, I do not think it is acceptable to delete articles without first discussing any issues. The effect of reverting the pages I have written is to delete them. Many hours of work have been spent writing these and to have them deleted is frustrating in the extreme.

What does "pseudo-duplicated" mean? I have not duplicated anything. I have written articles on melaleucas without referring to any page about callistemons. If it is not appropriate to have an article on Callistemon brachyandrus as well as one on Melaleuca brachyandra for example, what gives anybody the right to delete one or the other without consultation or discussion as you have done? You have deleted start class or C-class articles and left Stubs!

You write "The taxonomy of Calistemon is controversial, but since we try to stick to APGIII we really shouldn't be using it." That sentence makes no sense to me - what is "it" that we shouldn't be using? All the articles I have written comply with APG111. The names used all appear in the Australian Plant Name Index.

You write "However you should never duplicate articles as you have done." Can you substantiate that statement? Even if Callistemon brachyandrus and Melaleuca brachyandra are "duplicate articles", what give anybody the right to delete the start class article and leave the stub? Your actions leave Wikipedia the poorer. For example, there is an article on

Gderrin (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courteous reply Mark.

I agree with most of what you write. I think that you will agree that my articles duplicate only a few brief Callistemon pages. It seems to me that the simple solution is to merge what information there is on those pages into melaleuca articles and then to redirect the callistemon articles. A few (notably those described by Molyneux) do not seem to have a melaleuca equivalent and I have very little information on them.

Gderrin (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Mark.

Most (perhaps all) of the Callistemon pages that existed were written by User:Melburnian, so I have written to her/him asking for his/her opinion. Now all of the Callistemon pages have a page (except those that Craven seems to have ignored). My next job is to write the Callistemon page with the arguments for and against the move to Melaleuca. I have also added my username to the WikiProject Australian biota as you suggested, indicating my interest in the debate. It does not seem to be a page that has much action though. I will watch with interest.

Gderrin (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electra Navarone (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Nocturnal inhabitants of Glochidion Ferdinandi, Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus Vulpecula) and Ringtail Possum (Pseudocheirus peregrinus), located in Zillmere, Queensland.[reply]

• 
  Montage of images of possum inhabitants and foliage specimens of Glochidion Ferdinandi in Zillmere, Queensland
• 
  Brushtail Possum inhabitant and folivore of Glochidion Ferdinandi in Zillmere, Queensland
• 
  Ringtail Possum inhabitant and folivore of Glochidion Ferdinandi in Zillmere, Queensland

This is not original research, it is common knowledge throughout wildlife groups.

Re [8],

Benny Shanon, Biblical Entheogens: A Speculative Hypothesis (Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology Consciousness and Culture, Volume I, Issue I, March 2008, pp. 51–74) [[9]] Dickie birdie (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The additions there were both to non-RS sources. I got one, and someone else got the other. Thanks for the heads-up! I'll see if I can find something reliable. MSJapan (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are you going to remove the sprig of acacia on Hiram's grave from all Third Degree Tracing Boards? Has Albert Mackay become unreliable as well as Samuel Prichard overnight? Perhaps you need to alter the Benny Shanon Wiki article as well, since you are all panicking. Dickie birdie (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed - William Morgan is used as a reliable source in the Hiram Abiff Wiki article and you are complaining about the use of Samuel Pritchard. Dickie birdie (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I do not regard Lomas & Knight as reliable sources either. I always relied on material by Knoop, Jones & Hamer, and articles in AQC. Dickie birdie (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. We're not talking about Hiram Abiff, we're talking about acacia. Burger King sells chicken, too; it doesn't mean it's pertinent to an article about McDonald's. Morgan is relevant when talking about Morgan's work, not when making a gross generalization. Moreover, Mackey is not a "universal source"; people choose to use him if his material suits their purpose. You could have easily as well used Robert Freke Gould's or Coil's Encyclopedias, and the answer might be substantially different. I'd also add you used nothing from sources which you claim you rely upon.

What is pertinent, however, is that none of your additions even appear in the sources in which you claim them to be, and the sources themselves are malformed - I had to go look everything up elsewhere just to address the statements made. Further discussion will take place on the Talk:Acacia page, or not at all, and continued insertion of unsourced material will be considered vandalism and dealt with as such. You also appear to be misusing your user page as article space. MSJapan (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mark,

Thanks for your thanks on Eremophila maculata.

I suppose you thought my image was incorrect because of the label in Wikimedia Commons? Actually it's not - I just made a mistake when I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. I photographed Eremophila glabra and Eremophila maculata (and Eremophila abietina) at the Australian Botanic Garden Mount Annan on Monday and mislabelled one image. The image I added to the Wikipedia page Eremophila maculata is definitely Eremophila maculata (and with the greatest respect!!) is superior to the one you've replaced it with. The specimens of both species (E. maculata and E. glabra) which I photographed were labelled and the labels were confirmed correct by the horticulturalist to whom I spoke at the time and place (Bed 101a). I do not know what other criterion you could have used to come to the conclusion "seems to be wrong species". Please replace the image I added yesterday.

Gderrin (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mark. I don't agree with "far" but thanks! Also thanks for arranging to have the file renamed. By the way, I remember the horti's name - it was Chris Cole, whom I now know looks after the Big Ideas garden at Mount Annan. He was very helpful.

Cheers! Gderrin (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, based on past interactions at Glyphosate and elsewhere, I thought you might be interested in the current ArbCom case. The Arbitration Committee is currently inviting comments from any parties that have past experience with the topics, or persons, involved. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI 'legal threats' are where an editor has threatened to take legal action. Where an editor has said they have 'reported' to a relevent authority, they are not technically making a legal threat as they are not actually in a position to take legal action - and its already been done so its not a threat anyway. A recent extreme example (used because its an obvious issue) if I see a known UK editor obviously grooming an underage UK editor (to the extent of advising him how to contact without his parents knowing) and I report him to the relevant UK child protection authorities, even if I make this known on-wiki this would not be a legal threat as I am not in the position to do anything about it. I cant bring a case or instruct a legal team on their behalf as I have no standing (fyi the editor in my example was globally banned by a WMF office action at a later date). However saying all the above - this does not mean the editor is not making remarks intended to 'chill' discussion, which is often the standard 'legal threats' are held to rather than the actual ability to bring legal action. Regards Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its a bit of a grey area really. Where someone is clearly trying to invoke legalese to chill the discussion, most people (self included) would warn them of the the no legal threats etc, in this case however its more of a throwaway 'I have reported this to the relevant authorities' at which point asking them to retract their threats (the usual response to a legal threat before blocking) would be functionally impossible if they have actually lodged a report. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rodenticide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ignition. 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) 11:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ficus platypoda, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the lithophytic desert fig has edible figs and can be used as bonsai? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ficus platypoda. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 1 October 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

At no stage did i break the three revert rule. i was very careful not to do so, even going so far as to leave the other editors final revert in place and asking them to self revert on the article talk page and on their talk page. I did seek to discuss the issue on the article talk page. In fact I started two separate sections to discuss these issues and laid out my concerns in full with all my reasoning. The other editor persistently reverted both my edits and that of a third editor. All of this is quite clear if you want to look at the article history, the talk page history and the other editors talk page. At no stage did i revert the same material more than three times in any 24 hour period. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been given links to

WP:3RR multiple times in the past; "whether involving the same or different material" is in a big red box that summarizes the policy. I verified your edits and my list matches Bbb23's analysis below. Kuru (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

---

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

• You reverted five times on October 3: 07:35, 09:12, 09:28, 09:46, and 09:52.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ArbCom case involving you. [10]

SBHarris 06:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mark Marathon arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 12:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

SBHarris 00:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Mark Marathon. 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

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]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding churnalism. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Phys.org#Edits today". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Naesco (talk)

Hello, I noticed you rolled back my edit, and I respect that by an expert. Now I am going to add sentences back for non-medical use, deleting the human medication part but the counter citrus virus property. Would you care to check on that later? Thank you for your time. —Omotecho (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:MEDRS. The information virus resistance is good, but it shouldn't be placed in the traditional medicine section, since it is 't about medical uses. Unless you want to create a new section, I suggest yoy place it in the cultivation section. Cheers. Mark Marathon (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, appreciate your crisp response, and my mistake mixing those lines up with medical subject. Yes, let me place virus resistance under cultivation section; at least my reference is done by people at an agricultural research center, and it took them years before being published on a journal, but not in the field of medicine of course. Understood MEDRS, and good to know somebody is keeping eyes on the high standard of definition. Regards, —Omotecho (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help. I didn't really intend to suck you down a rat hole that I've been reluctant to go down myself. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that no editor

I agree with User:Miniapolis: User:Mark Marathon appears to make a habit of this and I find his behaviour distinctly unpleasant, having just posted yet another dictatorial message on my talk page. Kindly desist.Roy Bateman (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm wondering if you may have some feedback on the topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mark Marathon. 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

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]

Don't answer on my user page, answer on the article Talk page so that others can chime in. And it's kind of silly to toss around "edit war" at the drop of a hat; this is a disagreement between editors, which happens all the time in wikipedia - in fact, that's kind of the point of wikipedia, for people to figure out edits through discussion. I'll await your comment on the article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, You didn't sign the edit warring warning message you put on my talk page. I won't be putting one on your talk page as was hoping that we would reach some sort of consensus on the the articles that were being reverted. Anyway I hope you find the additions I've made to each article more to your liking. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realise there was a war, found this discussion on WP:Plants and restored the content. I will revert to the 'wrong version' if you still consider this under dispute. I wouldn't cygnis insignis 22:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• STOP doing this sort of thing, please. It is trout-worthy and unhelpful. —cygnis insignis 22:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please cease your disruptive behavior, Indigenous names are not foreign names and reverting your edits where you removed the only sourcing is not edit warring. Its also inappropriate to remove sourced content that is relevant, it is not
  WP:UNDUE to included information about natural variances within the range of a species, these variances and their causes are factual and significant. With respect to the templates you placed on User talk:Hughesdarren I have removed them as their usage is inappropriate under the circumstances and do not meet the requirements. Gnangarra 08:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hello, Mark Marathon. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mark Marathon, with this edit, I reverted back to an earlier version. Violation of SYNTH was already there in the first version in this lemma. Here you can see that

If what you are saying is correct, then yes. If a source, such as a dictionary, isn't specifically referring to a species, then using it to derive a species name is clearly synthesis. As far as I can tell, the version of the article that I reverted to uses a book on Melaleucas as it's reference, which is a RS and not synthesis. If I have confused versions and this is the not the case, then by all means revert to the verison that does use that book as its source, and accept my apologies. Mark Marathon (talk)

Maybe

Wimpus (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Before we go down that rabbit hole, could you please go to the M. lasiandra talk page and quote exactly what Brophy says that supports your preferred version? Regardless of whether other editors are engaging in synthesis, your own edits need to be reliably sourced and can't be based on personal knowledge. Thanks. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not used Brophy. I have reverted back to an earlier version. And while using Brown might be a violation of SYNTH, the addition of the etymological explanation of Brophy was not actually an improvement as andros does not mean male, but is the genitive case (of a male). That is not my personal opinion, as is evident from this source here, but also from Brown, that mentions andros as second word. He explains in his introduction that those are genitve cases.

Wimpus (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe this will help you to understand the difference between aner and andros.

Wimpus (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not going to discuss this any further on my user page. Take it to the article talk page please. You did indeed make an edit which cited Brophy as the source for your derivation. Regardless of what you may think that andros means, Brophy is RS and you are not. If Brophy says it means "small and pink" then that is what goes into the article unless you can find another reliable source that says otherwise. And even then we just put both verisons into the article and let the reader decide. You can not remove reliably sources material regardless of how wrong you believe it to be. If you believe that Brophy is not RS, then discuss it on the article talk page and get consensus or take it to the RS noticeboard and get consensus there. It matters not one whit whether you believe this is a genitive case or a book case. If it is supported by a reliable source, it stays in the article. it your derivation is not supported by RS it can;t go into the article. That's the whole story.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should be reverting anyone and you will need to have some understanding of the situation because you didn't do anything right. If you do not see that he added a ref to that sentence then you are not

Hello, I'm Beauty School Dropout. I noticed that you recently removed content from Delphi Falls, New York without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mark, Only just noticed you've been blocked again. You and I have had disagreements in the past but my contributions in this place would be even less significant without your help, and especially without the images of plants from out-of-the-way places that you have uploaded. Also appreciate your help in challenging Wimpus's edits. Gderrin (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]