User talk:Mark Renier

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

redirects and pipes
Hi Mark,

please do not change redirects to pipes. Redirects are better. See WP:REDIRECT. Thanks, --Trovatore (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

no trolling
Calling other editors vandals for reverting edits with spurious citations is considered trolling. That will get you blocked as easily as vandalism. You are also engaged in an edit war; it's rather hypocritical of you to issue me warnings. kwami (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, first I warned you that what you were doing could be considered vandalism, BEFORE you further revert my valid edits. Then, you reverted anyway, without opening appropriate discussions on the subject as I requested. Your reversions were also "uncited", which means you could not provide validation for your edits. These two acts together show the acts as vandalism. I see your contributions are quite long, and I value them and your abilities as an editor. I do not wish to start an edit war. However, these actions when taken together do constitute vandalism. You should be aware however that I do not consider you a vandal! You are quite an active editor and I do not wish to disrupt your edits. We only have a dispute about these articles in question. Blatantly ignoring my valid citations, and not backing up your reversions with any counter citations constitutes the whole of my disagreement with you. Otherwise I might call you friend. Please consider any citations before reverting, not just my edits but any editor here on Wikipedia. I'm sure if you looked at the citations objectively, you can see their validity. Especially since this is not a new subject but has been covered before in detail. Additionally, I am NOT trolling. Those are called valid edits, valid because they included citations to reputable third party sources. // Mark Renier (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a full citation table at countries of the united kingdom which establishes the current text. You should also read WP:BRD and I recommend being a bit less hasty in using the "vandalism" word. You could not be expected to be aware, but this is a regular dispute and frequently attracts vandals and POV pushers, so editors who watch the pages tend to be on a bit of a hair trigger.  All context. -- Snowded  TALK  10:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for linking me to a well referenced article. It's more consideration than I've gotten from kwami and I appreciate it's value. // Mark Renier (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Pleasure, tempers get lost easily around this subject! -- Snowded  TALK  10:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You're pulling the same shit again, and again calling it vandalism. Worse, you're making the article stupid: if there are no constituent countries in the K of Denmark, then why cover it at the article on constituent countries at all? If the refs are bad, then we need better refs, not repeated attempts to make the article garbled. kwami (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for considering |my edits valid, asshole. Read the fucking citation. I even quoted from the cite. The cite was used to validate something in the article that the citation does not support. Read that line again, that was your problem last time. I corrected the line in the article to match the citation that was used. Your response was to find a better citation. I don't need to find the citation, I am correcting an existing one. If you think the cite is poor also then why don't you yank it yourself instead of starting a name calling party, dick head. My edit is correct. You find the cite or yank it. It's you who has the problem here. // Mark Renier (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WP is a social enterprise. If you have difficulty dealing with other people, perhaps you should find something else to do with your time. Meanwhile, we have a section of "constituent country" that allegedly has nothing to do with constituent countries. It's a nonsensical edit. If the citation is bad, you can remove it and replace it with a 'citation needed' tag. Or you could take all of 10 minutes to cite it properly. kwami (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have difficulties with anyone but you, who doesn't have the time to properly consider valid edits. It is you who have been reverting my edits, thus it is YOU who has the problem. In both cases I have made valid edits while all you do is revert them out of hand without using your teeny brain to think about them for a second. Take some time to review a persons edits and make constructive criticism of them instead of just blindly reverting them if you don't agree with them. I notice you spent more than ten minutes editing comments to me, you could have just fixed the bad ref on the article yourself! Instead, you would rather leave the bad ref in, and waste ten minutes of your time plus ten minutes of my time. Back to the actual article edits, you still have not read it, nor the cite which was wrong, obviously, nor addressed the concerns I made here. Fine, I took your first suggestion and remove the invalid reference completely. No go back to reverting edits because you certainly don't have any valid contributions to make. // Mark Renier (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mark. Please engage in the discussion before making changes to an article that are likely to be contested. Night w (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Human-based genetic algorithm
FYI, when you saved AWB changes on "Human-based genetic algorithm" you left the "Evolutionary genetic systems and human agency" section unreadable for 2 weeks. Please be more careful next time. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human-based_genetic_algorithm&oldid=312546369

Useless automated edits
Hi, please stop using AWB for useless automated edits like this. In addition to being a waste of your time, they clog everyone else's watchlists and article history. This sort of editing is explicitly discouraged in AutoWikiBrowser Rules of use, which you should have read before signing up for AWB access. -- intgr [talk] 13:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I will watch for these more closely. Sorry for your troubles. // Mark Renier (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Curriculum vitae
I have started a move discussion about CV, Curriculum vitae and Résumé. You have previously participated in this topic, and I would like your input in this discussion if you are still interested. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

redirects
Please don't replace redirects by pipes. Redirects are better than pipes. See WP:NOTBROKEN. Thanks, --Trovatore (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Unified Modeling Language, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''You removed a template. Please don't do it again. Marking the addition of the template as vandalism was uncalled-for.'' Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the edit. All I did was insert . --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct! Your previous edits started a trend that I have seen before that did not seem like you were going to be reasonable. I jumped the gun. My apologies. // Mark Renier (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Turning Ten
On Saturday January 15, 2011, Wikipedia will turn 10 years and people all over the globe will be celebrating Wikipedia on that day. No event is currently planned for Orange County Wikipedians, so I am leaving a message with some of the currently involved editors listed in "Wikipedians in Orange County, California" & "Wikipedians in Southern California" to see if we might want to meet on that day, lunch, dinner, group photo or other ideas welcomed? I will start a "Turning Ten" discussion thread on my Talk page to see if any interest can be planned for and determined. I am located in Old Towne Orange off the circle.Tinkermen (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Paywall sources
Your take on the policy regarding sources behind paywalls is off. Please read WP:PAYWALL and WP:Reliable sources/Cost. In fact, Nature is about the highest level of reliable and verifiable source that are available. It's one of the gold standards by which other reliable sources are measured. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To add a minor point to that, Nature (journal) isn't Yank. You may have been misled by them choosing to charge in $. . dave souza, talk 16:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dominus, thanks for pointing out a subtle difference of which I did not know. I now know that it is acceptable to post paylinks into Wikipedia if it is verifiable as a source, and it does not have to be immediately verifiable (as with the paylink).
 * Dave, my term "yank" was used in a comment as a verb, i.e., "yank out the weeds". I didn't realize that it was a colloquialism until after seeing your confusion with "Yank", i.e., "American". I will try to use the word Delete from now on, or something similar, to avoid this in the future. Sorry for the confusion, but I am glad also because I learned something from both of you. // Mark Renier (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup using AWB
If the only thing done is "cleanup" (not affecting the display), it shouldn't be done. You've already broken Set theory twice.... If you can't use AWB correctly.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, I did not see the special usage of math symbols which messed up my first edit. My second edit to fix it did not break the article, but was reverted as inconsequential. // Mark Renier (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012
Your recent editing history at Intelligent design shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. S Æ don talk 09:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * With the investigation conclusion, the admins found no evidence of truth to your assertion. It did find evidence that other editors were involved. I have documented the evidence here that you were the only other editor. Your assertion is therefore a form of harassment. // Mark Renier (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. S Æ don talk 09:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! This is a good opportunity to show my side of the case finally to an unbiased editor. As you can see from the notice on that page, "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor", and from the examples you gave it is clear that it was you in fact that is doing the reversions, and I actually did zero reversions; that is, I never reverted at all, and you did three reversions. Here is the evidence:

You bring these charges against me while clearly doing the exact thing that you accuse me of? Since this is my talk page, allow me to call you a flagrant hypocrite. //Mark Renier (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * // My constructive edit
 * // Saedon outright reversion
 * // My constructive edit
 * // Saedon outright reversion
 * // My constructive edit
 * // Saedon outright reversion

Nibiru cataclysm
Does it really matter which lunatic fringe websites promote the idea? Should I link to their pages?  Serendi pod ous  19:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Using "some" but not specifying which ones is the ambiguous part. It does matter if there is at least one, but we need to know which one. Personally, I don't think it matters, and if this is the case, then the sentence should be reworded to eliminate the ambiguous word "some". However, I don't have that knowledge about |at least one, but maybe somebody else does, that's why I flagged it. If you don't think that it applies, we can just remove the word "some" and I would be happy. Does that work? // Mark Renier (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. I must be tired. Thank God Kheider caught your edit. No, David Morrison, NASA scientist and much-abused Nibiru debunker, does not make the claims of conspiracy websites.  Serendi pod ous  21:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Military strategy
Hi -- concerning the edits we've been conflicting about on this article, I think you're missing the point. The reason we should use "some" and "others" and similar wording (per WP:WEASEL is because they can imply either original research or wrting with a point of view, and the reason to add the "who" tags is to get such writing cited. However, in this case, the sentence is cited, and therefore represents the views of the writers, so it does not require any additional citation, and does not fall afoul of "weasel".  I'm going to go back there now and make it clear the the views expressed in the sentence are those of the cited author.  Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops! I see that you did that and I accidentally undid it -- my mistake, and my apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding on the ban against "weasel words". You and I, as Wikipedia editors, are not allowed to use these words, because they involve interpretation or analysis, and unsupported interpretation and analysis is considered to be original research or to violate the neutral point of view.  However, a reliable source can  interpret and analyze, and that source can therefore use those "weasel words" like "some", "many" and so on.  It is not necessary the we know which specific military strategists that G&A are referring to, it is enough to know that they are a reliable source and, in their opinion "some strategists....." whatever.  There is a distinct and clear difference between the editorial voice of Wikipedia (which we write) saying "some strageists believe" and the opinion of a reliable source saying "some strategists believe..." I hope this clears things up for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations you are both ignorant, and a WP:DICK. A two-fer.  Enjoy!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your war on the word "some"
Please don't play these silly games. When someone tells you, and even the prose in the article tells you, that a some-people-do-X-other-people-do-Y analysis is made by two named people, that does not mean that the Wikipedia prose is a quotation, as would have been quite obvious had you read the source. You clearly have not read the source. I know because I took the time, seeing your war against every occurrence of the word "some", to pull it up and look through it. To anyone who had read the source, it would have been amply clear that your edit turning prose into a quotation was utterly wrong, because that string of words occurs nowhere in the paper. Don't muck up articles with spurious nonsense like this just because you don't like the word "some" and someone tells you about indirect speech. Do things properly. That includes reading the sources cited, as I did, and then challenging things that seem badly founded. The irony here is that if you had read the source cited instead of being silly like this you wouldn't be foolishly focussing just upon the word "some" and wouldn't have completely missed the actual problem here. Uncle G (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * COMMENTS FROM HYPOCRITE DELETED
 * Please take your valid issues to the articles themselves, as I have done, Saedon; you are a verified hypocrite and your comments are banned from this page.
 * To other readers who may be following along in this saga, Wikipedia has standard policies that enforce the same boring standard qualities such as verifiability, ambiguousity, and editorializing, on all articles including your precious taboo articles, whatever they may be. Be a man and step up. Verify the statements in your articles. Make it clear who is talking about what. Don't embellish the article with flowery words that hide true value in the meaning of Wiki. // Mark Renier (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Service ribbons
Saw those Navy ribbons on your userpage. I'm a Milhist wikipedian who's doing a significant amount of U.S. Navy related edits. Are you happy to tell me about your service, either on talk or by wp e-mail? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There isn't a lot to say that is different from anyone else's one-term enlistment. I had some training assignments, rated as an Electrician's Mate, and get two postings, one year overseas on Diego Garcia, and three years on USS Wabash (AOR-5). I kept my nose clean and got the standard good conduct medal and service ribbons. The battle-E ribbon is actually awarded to the ship and not the sailor, but the sailor is allowed to wear the ribbon while he serves on the unit that earned the battle-E. Was there something particular that you would like to focus upon? //Mark Renier (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Useless AWB Edits
Hi, Mark- My watchlist was recently filled with edits like this one in which all you did was reorder invisible elements. As you have already been warned (above), this is against AWB policy - in cases like this, simplying skipping the page is the better path. Thanks - and please be more careful in the future.  Theo polisme  20:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And please remember that you are responsible for all the edits you do with AWB, so even if it is malfunctioning by suggesting that you add a stub tag to a disambiguation page, you should watch what it's doing and reject its suggestion - the page name having "(disambiguation)" was a pretty good clue). (I've reported the problem, that AWB was not recognising disambiguation cleanup as a dab page identifier, and Magioladitis says it's now fixed.) Pam  D  10:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup
You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) &mdash; Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup
Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) &mdash; Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 02:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Mark Renier! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  20:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!