User talk:Mark.Esarey

August 2007
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a simple mistake to make and by now should have been corrected. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. Oli Filth 21:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to your question about appropriate and/or legal behavior on Wikipedia

 * Mark, the removal of the comments in question from the articles themselves is generally considered sufficient on Wikipedia. That has been done in this case.  As long as the articles don't defame anyone or any organization, related discussion is generally left on the talk page or on the user pages involved.  Also see Libel and No legal threats.  If you feel the present version of the articles still contain inaccuracies, I hope you will continue to point them out or remove them yourself- you would be an excellent choice of editor to write a much better article on Cahokia.  The high public visibility of Wikipedia articles makes them an excellent medium for educating the public about archaeology; which is why I got into this in the first place.


 * Since the Cahokia and Monks Mound articles now contain only neutral statements to the effect of "excavation was conducted," the matter will probably be dropped. If User:Marburg72 or others continue to add unverified information related to the subject, other editors such as myself will continue to remove it until they provide independently published citations supporting their views.  Even if that happens, their views must be presented as only one of many views, to remain neutral.  If editors become disruptive to the article while advancing their point, the assistance of Wikipedia administrators may be requested, as per Resolving disputes.  Offending parties may be temporarily or permanently banned from the site, and/or the article may become protected against all or certain edits.


 * At this point, I would like to observe that User:Marburg72 HAS stopped modifying these articles for the past few days (He has not changed the Cahokia or Monk's Mound articles since August 29th, evidently due to my comments and revision on August 30th). Although he was not previously following Wikipedia policies, recently he has been content to advance his opinions on discussion pages like Talk:Cahokia rather than articles such as Cahokia.  In line with the Assume good faith guideline, I have been assuming he did not realize that his actions were inappropriate, and he has since figured it out.  Furthermore, now that the offending statements have been taken off the articles, only Wikipedia editor types who read page histories will see them; the general public will not.


 * If you feel that fixing the article is insufficient, discussing it on the talk page (as you have been doing) is always the best first step. Or you could contact the folks in charge; see Contact_us/Article_problem, the email address is info-en-q@wikimedia.org.


 * I assure you I will be watching the article. TriNotch 04:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)