User talk:Mark Shaw/Archive 1

Someone has sent for the Cabal!
The case Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-17 Filibuster (military) has been opened. Please comment and help to come to an agreement. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR
You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule at Filibuster (military). Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Thanks! --Chris S. 13:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I got your e-mail; I counted four reverts, and not two, within a 24-hour period. :-D Relevant links:     Thanks. --Chris S. 22:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Regarding Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-17 Filibuster (military) - I've not seen anything from the other person (Doughface) and a check of his talk page indicates that he's left WP. Should I take this as an indicator that I've "won" the dispute? If so, I intend to change the links in the "see also" section back.

Sorry if this is a stupid / inappropriate question - I'm a rank newbie.

HiramShadraski 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's OK. The Mediation Cabal doesn't declare "winners" or "losers", it just exists to provide friendly answers to questions and help users come to an agreement. However, since Doughface appears to have left, it is unlikely that you will be reverted if you change the links back. If you are, however, then think long and hard about re-reverting, as it may be the case that others are opposed to your changes too. Stifle (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden
Who is Osama bin Laden if not a "a private individual who engages in unauthorized warfare against a foreign country"? I'm making the case that Osama bin Laden is indeed a contemporary example of a military filibusterer, and that as such he should be included in the historic article as a modern example. (I'm not arguing that archaic term need be included in his own article.) In any case, some semantic distinctions probably need to be made eventually between non-state actors, terrorist organizations, private armies, freedom fighter and military filibusterers. A can of worms, I know, but private individuals have a lot more techological prowess at their disposal than Walker did his his day! A rising tide lifts all boats. Kencf 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Old conversation about Panama Canal Zone
Hello again, Hiram. I was going through my old edits & noticed that I mistakenly placed this conversation on your User Page, my apologies. Here are the contents:

Panama Canal Zone Hi. I only lived in the Canal Zone from 72-75, at that time some of the restrictions were in place. Perhaps the entry needs clarification with the proper citations. Thanks for your attention.--Son of Somebody 19:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for your input. Let's discuss it on the talk page instead of each other's user pages, shall we?--Son of Somebody 13:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

--Son of Somebody 03:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Javier and the commas
I double-checked and -- sorry to tell you -- s/he is right about those commas, even if s/he is being a tool about it.

When the full month, day and year appear in a sentence, the year must be either offset on BOTH sides by commas or a period must be placed after the year to end the sentence.

A semicolon may be used in place of the comma after the year when the entire date is part of a longer list where semicolons are being used.

A semicolon may be used in place of the period after the year when said semicolon is linking two independent clauses.

It's an all-too-common mistake.

Sorry... almost forgot to sign... The GrammarCzar

Killian documents
Hi. I reverted your revert at Killian documents. You may not have been aware of this, but there is an active discussion going on its Talk page regarding many, many problems with the version you reverted to. Reverting all the corrections without discussion and only putting "NPOV" into the edit summary as your "explanation" might be considered vandalistic, especially considering all the recent problems there have been with sockpuppets and such causing trouble with that wiki. FYI. (PS -- should I call you "(deleted)"?) -BC aka Callmebc 15:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Cesar Millan Article
Sorry, I'm very new in Wikipedia and I didn't know about the talk page before. For making an article look objective I think we have to post all the pros and cons of the subject, in this case, Cesar Millan. If you post only the critics part, you are misguiding people to a wrong conclusion about him, so, is like manipulating the article. Is because of this that I have posted a prises part on the article (or delete the critics one). I don't have any interest in making Cesar look more atractive, since I'm from Spain and don't have any link with him, but I think we have to try to make articles look neutral.

A part from this, I think the "legal" part of the article, doesn't have to be in the "critics" part, it has to be an independent one.

Sorry for any inconvenience,

Regards from Spain

--Emongeca7 (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Little Green Footballs
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. McJeff (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I on LGF
Just so you know, I've listed Eleland and Timeshifter on AN/I for their disruptive actions on the LGF article. McJeff (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Definition of Conservatism
Hi Mark, thanks for the link. I've learned a fair bit about conservatism in the United States that I didn't know before. There are diverse strands of conservatism in Australia too - this seems to show the difficulty of using words to describe categories. My point remains that there is no such think as "neutral" or "apolitical" reporting when it comes to political issues. Every word carries particular connotations which will be (albeit unconsciously) biased towards supporting or opposing a particular point of view.Sumthingweird (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My point remains that there is no such think as "neutral" or "apolitical" reporting when it comes to political issues.


 * That's typically true, but it's still a violation of professional ethics. Hence, it's my opinion that "accused of" works just fine when speaking of a journalist's political biases, regardless of the nature or direction of those biases.  (This assumes that we're speaking of reporters, news anchors, et al, rather than (e.g.) editorial writers or talk-show hosts, who are expected by the nature of their positions to inject commentary into what they write or say.) Mark Shaw (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Panama canal
Not sure what you mean by no citations? The section was completly lacking in citations before I started, and I added about half a dozen. As to NPOV, I'm not really sure what the POV I insterted was? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles Foster Johnson
I would ask that you please come to the talk page and explain your objections to the added content rather than removing it without constructive comment. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.194.45 (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

cut the crap. you're the only one going against consensus, stop trying to bias the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleGreenVolleyball (talk • contribs) 21:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Haw Haw Haw
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. LittleGreenVolleyball (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Best if you step back from this for a little while William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Firearm safety
You do not think it is important to state the first gun lock approved by the standards set forth by the government? Jweinraub42986 (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Shootist quote
I left your edit, because I think it's a good one, but FYI: the line is in the movie twice, once as voice-over and once in dialog between Wayne and Howard. Monkeyzpop (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha. Yes, I think I remember that now.  Thanks! Mark Shaw (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

LGF and Charles Johnson
Good work dealing with the stuff going on there. I suspect abusive behavior from the accounts that you were arguing with and have posted about it on AN/I. Though I guess it might not matter since I just noticed they've been inactive for a few days... ah well. Here's the discussion. Sorry I wasn't around to help when it was a problem, but classes leave me little time for wikipedia. McJeff (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I've been less active than usual as well, as I'm traveling right now. We'll see what happens.... Mark Shaw (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Alamo
I've noticed that you've been keeping a close eye on Battle of the Alamo. I've been working towards nominating it for FA (eventually). If you have the time and inclination, would you mind taking a close look at the article to see if there are any sections that appear overly detailed or confusing (either because I assumed people knew something or the writing was unclear)? That would be really helpful. There is no hurry on the review, and if you don't have time, no hard feelings. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a closer look at it when I have the time. It may be this weekend before that happens, though.  And thank you for all of your work on this. Mark Shaw (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's - heh - somewhat later than the weekend of January 10th, but I've finally gotten around to this. I think the article is in pretty good shape, but I do have the following suggestions:
 * I think some brief in-line description of what the three major players - Travis, Bowie, Crockett - were doing prior to their arrival at The Alamo would be good. I know that each of these has his own WP page, but the article would read better if it were a little more descriptive on this point.  (Note that I'm not talking about a full biographical summary; just what they were doing in the days and weeks before the siege.)
 * My understanding is that the "line in the sand" legend has been pretty well deprecated, and that many historians feel that it's likely that Louis Rose fabricated it. That last bit is, in my opinion, speculation, but I do think the language describing this legend should be a little more definitive in describing it as just that - a legend.
 * I'm afraid I can't put my finger on exactly how, but it's my impression that the intro could use a little tightening up. I may have to reread it and think about that a little more.
 * Anyway, that's my input. I can help with some of this, and with other points, if necessary.  I have (from the article's bibliography) Chariton, Hardin, and Lindley on my shelves, as well as William C. Davis's Lone Star Rising and Three Roads to the Alamo and Randy Roberts's A Line in the Sand.  Please let me know what you think. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is excellent feedback. I haven't read Three Roads to the Alamo yet...that's on my list for someday. I really like Davis's writing style.  I would appreciate any help you'd like to give.   I'd love to get this article featured this year, it's just so massive! Karanacs (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sock page
First of many methinks! :-)--DFS454 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Truth About John Wayne
Sorry about your Duke, but those are HIS words not mine. That article whitewashes who he was and I actually toned it tone. the playboy interview is very well known and needs to be fleshed out,if you don't care for it then that's too bad. This is about neutrality not about an agenda to make someone look good.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is whether the interview deserves as much mention in the article as your contribution implements, that's all - at least as far as I see it. I do agree that it should be in there; not sure if it should be a separate section, etc.  Please see my notes on the article's talk page. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I did, I just responded. I'll change the wording. The interview is one Playboy's most well known and it's his own words.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

John Wayne Again
I don't have too terrible a problem with the section as it stands now, other than the fact that the focus on this one interview, as its own stand-alone paragraph, seems to create controversy beyond that which the article carried in its time.

I would suggest that if the "I believe in white supremacy" line remains in your edit that it follow the two sentences leading up to it: "With a lot of blacks, there's quite a bit of resentment along with their dissent, and possibly rightly so.  But we can't all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the blacks."

I like that Wayne says in the interview that if the Indians want Alcatraz (which the Indian movement was then occupying), they should buy it--for the same amount the whites bought Manhattan for, $24. :-)

I've been under the weather and haven't had time to scan the interview (it's about 20 pages, so that's a fair amount of work), and I'm leaving on a trip for a few weeks, so won't be able to soon. Maybe you can revise your edit again after I get a chance to send it to you.

I still think this one interview out of thousands Wayne gave gets too much focus in the article--not that it shouldn't be mentioned; after all, I did a lot of the original inputting on this particular material. But it's sort of like waving a flag, the way it's enlarged here. And it still doesn't address the fact that the interviewer felt it worthwhile to mention that Wayne drank "potent" drinks throughout the interview, from noon till dusk. I'm not sure why he mentioned that if it weren't at least mildly pertinent. Monkeyzpop (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray and William
It's fun between friends. See the history of Ray's user page. Guettarda (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yipes! That's what I get for checking WP late at night....  Sigh. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lori Berenson
I am not sure how I am supposed to discuss all of these changes without people being able to read them. The previous version is flagged for lack of citations. It has also been noted by some to be very "POV". And, given that it is a biography of a living person - it seems that those two things are a serious problem that would be good to correct in a timely way. Any suggestions? Thanks!Grover22 (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My first suggestion would be to take your changes one at a time, section-by-section, and to be careful to conform to WP:NPOV. Your edit amounted to a massive rewrite of the article with a definite change in tone - the thing that triggered my revert, in fact, was your describing Berenson as a "political prisoner" in the introduction. That's simply not going to stand, and I'm not speaking just for myself on that.


 * If you feel that the article as currently written is slanted too far one way or the other, or needs to be rewritten and/or supported by additional citations, then by all means let's correct that (as we should for any article, particularly those with inherent political content). But it's easiest for all editors to comment and contribute when we keep the diffs localized to sections or even individual paragraphs. So I propose that you choose one of your changes, go ahead and make it, and see what happens on the discussion page and in the article itself. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did talk to a friend that is pretty versed in Wiki. Your suggestions concur. And thanks for the clarification that PP phrasing is so controversial. I will take it a section at a time. Grover22 (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent! I look forward to collaborating with you. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks muchly
Vandalism isn't so bad when there are good dudes like you to clean it up so I don't have to deal with it. McJeff (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem at all - just glad I saw it. Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Goldberg
E-mail was received from Goldberg, asking that the article be updated to reflect the award that he was given on Monday. I had no idea that this would be at all controversial.

A source was provided; however, under the circumstances, I think that you would consider that source to be of insufficient reliability. I have asked for a better source, and will let you know how things turn out. DS (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Found a better source. DS (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't controversial; it's just that the only source I had seen previously was something written in 2007 - which necessarily would not have anything about a 2009 award. I just saw the cite you've added - thanks!  (I looked around myself, but was unable to locate anything.)


 * Question: what is "OTRS?" Mark Shaw (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind that, I see that it's answered on your talk page. Thanks again. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi Mark, Hope all is well. I've now been an editor on Wikipedia for over a month and feel like I'm starting to get the hang of things and of what's acceptable and what's not, though I still have a ways to go. I wanted to know if I could get feedback from you about what you think about my edits and if you think there's anything I should do differently or anything else. Feel free to leave a message on my page with any feedback when you get a chance. Thanks! Rosestiles (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)rosestiles

subst
Please do not use subst with the issues template as you did at Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. I have reverted your edit. Please read the template documentation on the correct way to use it. You should not use subst with most templates in articles. Those templates where subst should be used are clearly marked in the template documentation. Thank you. --Pascal666 20:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. I will research this before next adding a template to an article page.  Up to now I've only used them on user pages, where my understanding is that subst should be used. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct, for the most part. Subst should be used with most templates on user pages, such as user warning templates.  The exception is templates like sockpuppet and sockpuppeteer where the intent is not to notify the user, but to notify others looking into the user's behavior.  Basically if the template is a message for the user it should be subst'd so the message does not change over time, but if the template is about a user then it should not be subst'd.  When to subst is one of the more complex parts of Wikipedia.  Much more information can be found at Substitution.  --Pascal666 21:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ernst Röhm
Hi -- I noticed that you removed Category:Articles which may no longer need images from Ernst Röhm even though the article has several pictures and a portrait in the infobox. If the editors of this article are looking for a specific kind of image, can you clarify that by adding a template to the talk page, or some other note explaining what the article needs? It certainly looks from here like the article is well illustrated. :-) Thanks! Tim Pierce (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That was a mistake on my part - I was confused. I've self-reverted. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Panama Canal
nominated Panama Canal for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy to answer questions
So, apparently Wikipedia is not censored except when and how Jimbo says it's censored. Do I have that about right? Mark Shaw (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not right. I am available at jwales@wikia.com, if you'd like to ask me some questions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Gun safety copy edit
Thanks for the copy edit on my added sections in Gun safety; it reads a lot better with your changes. I'm trying to think of other ways to improve the article. Can you think of any images that might be added to clarify each of the four basic rules? --RabidDeity (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Do the work or don't do the talking
Regarding this edit summary, do the work or don't do the talking. For example with the Mohummy socking situation I first asked him what was going on, see, then when he deleted that question, , I did the work which showed me and others what was going on, and saw the results. So I did the work before I did the talking. So what I am saying to you is do the work or don't do the talking. Libel should not be tolerated, and laziness will not be an excuse for your continued personal attacks. Any more personal attacks by you and a formal complaint will be lodged to the proper authorities in the proper format. Good day sir. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 04:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel I've made any unwarranted personal attacks upon you, then by all means pursue whatever remedies you care to. Mark Shaw (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
Check out user:Eleemosynary. Compare that to user:StephenLaurie. Edit styles, obsessions with the same topics/[pages, and edits to/by a number of IP's tagged by admins as user:Eleemosynary ip socks, should be enough for you to make a case. Eleemosynary is subject to a permanent block due to a number of WP:Office violations. It is all in the history there. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.149.72 (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Fuhrman
Hey Mark - I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor so please excuse any missteps. The only page I've ever attempted to edit is on Mark Fuhrman. I saw your note that my edit about his book Murder In Greenwich was original thought. I noted on the discussion page that there is a book I referred to when making the edit. I think that resolves your concern, but let me know if you don't agree. I appreciate your comment - it helps me better understand the Wikipedia process.--Frank Quinn (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize that you were referring to Levitt as justification for your specific edit. I'm not that familiar with either book, but if what you say is true, then your edit is fine.  Be prepared to discuss this further in case some other editor raises objections, though. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Query from Redped
Hi Mark Shaw this is Redped are you from England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redped (talk • contribs) 12:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Panama Canal Zone, Colorado, and now Texas. Never been to England. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Little Green Footballs
Thank you for the correction. Sorry about that. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob. Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Civility warning
It is not appropraite to refer to my manner as "wearisome." It is not appropriate to state that I am "historically involved with POV-pushing." You are reminded to Comment on the content, not the contributor. Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Your tone and manner are wearisome. Every edit you've made on the article's talk page has dripped with contempt and sarcasm.  2. I was not referring to you on the second point.  3. In case you haven't noticed, I'm trying to work with you and see your side of things here.  Please don't make me regret that. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

12/10/09
Apparently you don't know about the discussion being held: here-. That editor is misinterpreting the policy, because the reasoning he gives does not justify removing countries from infoboxes. That page he shows us deals with the naming of articles. Again, there is a huge debate on this, just so you know. Tinton5 (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, staying out of it then. It doesn't seem to be a big deal to me anyway. Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Roxxxy
Hey, could you provide your rationale for deletion of the well-referenced personality type. Your edit summary "that's obviously ad copy" is blatantly misleading. Where is the advertisement here? It is published in third party reliable sources and an important description of the robot. Please continue the discussion in this page to avoid fragmentation. --Defender of torch (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, you are referring to my edit represented by this diff. The wording of the passage in question is quite obviously written as an advertisement, and cannot stand as written. Mark Shaw (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The passage would be an advertisement if it was published in truecompanion's website. But it is published in third party reliable source. This is why it should added back per WP:RS. --Defender of torch (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

starblueheather
In regards to the WashingtonPost poll of online comics, please see User talk:Starblueheather. tedder (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just added a comment there. Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR
I have filed a 3RR report against you. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Over, I presume, my reversions of your recent edits to Little Green Footballs. You are of course welcome to submit any reports you like, but you might have checked the article history first. I have not violated WP:3RR. Mark Shaw (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Four reverts in 25 hours. Hmm... well, I suppose that isn't a 3RR violation.


 * As it's obvious we simply disagree, I propose we take the issue to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 96.244.150.95 is not me, the one who's littlegreenfootballs entry you reverted without apparent cause. but i'm happy to see that someone is advising you of the rules.

Empanadas
I provided references to the edit I made as requested, but I do have to say, there is little reference to any of the other entries made on the page to support any of the other listings. The whole page needs a reference overhaul. Artemisboy (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and, indeed it does. Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

PZ Mayers
The allegation that he climbed the back of a dino is true. There is a picture here. And allegation that he climbed the back of a dino is here. The above reference was present at the end of that paragraph. 04:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilFlyingMonkey (talk • contribs)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism of my user page
I've been on such an extended Wikibreak, I only now noticed that you reverted vandalism on my user page back in January. Thanks VERY much! Art Smart Chart/ Heart 19:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Cigars
Hi there. I see you've fairly recently made an entry on the Cigars talk page and was wondering if you'd have any interest in participating in a "Cigar Work Group" to try to improve the histories of the various cigar makers, write up pages for key cigar components like filler, binder, wrappers, etc., and to otherwise improve the coverage of cigarmaking on Wikipedia... Drop me a line if this is of any interest and I will see about setting up a formal work group. Thank You. best, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR Carrite (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to, but please note that I don't know how much I can contribute. I'm more of a consumer than an aficionado, and while I'm conversant with the basic concepts I'd have to research most of the finer points. I could probably help more in the way of refining article structure and the like than in the creation of individual pages or sections. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's fine, different people have different interests and levels of energy. It would be helpful if you could take a few minutes to chime in at WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Cigars to demonstrate there is at least a little interest in the concept. Best, —Tim Carrite (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you be interested in helping with a documentary on the Panama Canal?
Hello, I noticed that you have more than ten edits on the Panama Canal article. First of all I would like to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Secondly, I am writing to ask you if you would consider participating as an advisor to a group producing a documentary about the canal and its history. If this is of interest to you please drop me a note on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Psingleton (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * [I have responded on Psingleton's talk page per his/her request. What follows is, for the record here, that response] Responding to your invitation on my talk page: sure, I'd be more than happy to help. Some background: I'm a third-generation (at least) Zonian, and spent my childhood and adolescence on the Pacific side of the Zone (1959-1976). My father was a civil engineer for the Panama Canal Company, and rose to the director level by the time of his retirement in 1980. I have a lot of personal experience to draw on, as well as contacts within the Zonian community, and some rare promotional books from the early days of the Canal. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Mark, My name is John Campbell and I have been working with Patricia Singleton on a project about the future of the Panama Canal. This is a skunk works project using a MediaWiki based wiki to understand how social collaboration can be used as an addition to a major television documentary. We are looking for experienced editors to write an article about the future of the canal that may be used as the follow up to the documentary that will be aired in January of 2011. If you would be interested in helping out between now and early January please drop me a note. We are not looking for a big time commitment. We are also looking for anyone you may know who may have an interest in  helping out. We are looking for data collection about the future of the canal and not necessarily encyclopedic content. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to help out however I can. I haven't been in Panama for 30 years, though, so I don't know how current any help I can give will be. I belong to a couple of networks of old Zonians, though, and can ping them for input as well. Let me know if you'd like me to proceed with that. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Mark, We are working out some last minute issues and we will be able to send you log in information soon. Would you send me your email address to whois_john_galt at yahoo.com? We are looking to expand upon the Panama Canal expansion project and The future of the Panama Canal. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Closer of Panama Canal
Dear Mark, I am glad you caught that error. I was only going what the newspaper say as they say.  Sorry, about posting an error. Also, do you know why flooding of the lakes cause a shut down. I had always read the problem was the reverse -- ie the lakes at to low a level do to illegal logging around the lakes. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the entire system is run by water flowing down the watershed through the Canal, and if the water is coming too fast the natural drainage through the locks can't keep up with it. Also, quite a lot of debris comes with the flooding - see this video clip for an example. That bridge is the point at which the Chagres River joins the Canal. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Mark, thanks for the reply. That is something. A whole land mass like an island with trees floating down the river. A lot of the problem from what I have read previously is illegal logging causing massive run off during heavy rains. Also, I am glad they never attempted a sea level canal. Sea Snakes would have then gotten into the Caribbean and Atlantic playing hell with much of the sea life like Asia Carp are now on the Mississippi system. Again, thanks. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Dexter Street/Ohio University
Mark, Wikipedia was a strange way to run into you again but how is THAT really different. I don't have a user talk page but I am in the phone book in Hallandale FL. Steve Curmode SteveCurmode (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, Steve - how are you, and what have you been up to for the last - gosh, nearly 20 years, I guess... Mark Shaw (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's been 27 years. are you on facebook? It's actually easier and a bit more private than wiki. With my last name obviously there is only one of me there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.62.2 (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Article for deletion debate
The article Young Conservatives of Texas has been nominated for deletion at AfD. Your input as to whether or not this article meets notability standards is invited. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
I find wiki help confusing, but it is also that I can't remember some of the basic things I have learned. I haven't attempted to create an account yet because I don't know that would make editing any easier. I tried once and got lost, even got an email address to use: mikewikipedia.wikipediamike@gmail.com Thanks again. 99.50.183.55 (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No prob - we were all newbies once, no matter the venue. Note that I did keep the Wikilink you added; just preserved the old wording. Mark Shaw (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't notice at first but that's okay. ....For what may be of interest. to you.... I went to Panama Canal article because I had been reading "The Forging of the American Empire by Sidney Lens" and wanted to be sure the Columbia intervention was at least mentioned. According to Lens and other histories I have read, the US uses its millitary to get the weakest countries to go along with the plans of "big business" often to the detriment of those weak countries. In this case it was Colombia who not only lost its Panama, but also the revenues that would come from the canal. The new independent Panama had to accept even worse terms. If the US would have made a better offer to Columbia and if Columbia had the military might to hold on to Panama then I think it would have been better for all of us "world citizens". We may never know exactly how much the US and/or its businessmen promoted the Panama revolt but their are many reliable accounts of the unethical methodes used. In any case, Sidney Lens' book gives a lot of insite into what is detrimental about the policies of the "big powers". This includes what has led people to most conflicts and wars. From my perspective, many articles in wikipedia tend to recite historical events with a pro-USA tone much like the history books used in their public schools. 99.50.183.55 (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins
If you have something to say. Say it. But don't threaten me with "blocking." I have already written on the talk page and you did not respond. mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

 * Ever feel like you're editing in a vacuum, and long for some camaraderie?
 * Do you want to improve an article and put a Featured Article star on your userpage but don't know how to get started?
 * Want to be part of a cohesive, committed team working together to improve conservatism one article at a time?

If you're interested in having lots of fun and working with great editors, click here and make history. We're now taking nominations. Lionelt (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about edited spam link.
Hello Mark,

Regarding the edit and removal of the "spam" link on the pepper spray Wikipedia, I have to respectfully disagree. The article is of high quality, and really should be read by everyone who uses pepper spray. There are other cited websites on that wikipedia page that have an article, (also well thought out and written) that are cited, and their main website is a store but they are not seen as spam. There are no blatant advertisements on that article, there isn't even any interlinking. I could possibly see it as spam if the article wasn't written that well, or it wasn't unique at all... or even if there was a big advertisement for pepper spray, but there is nothing intrusive whatsoever. Please note, I am not attacking you personally, I'm just trying to figure out how this is spam. I see two of the pepper spray law citations that are linked just copy information from other websites, they aren't unique at all. This article, "Dangerous Pepper Spray Mistakes" gives great value, would you disagree?

I'm looking forward to you response.

Quickdial1799 (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC) quickdial1799


 * The link you provided is to a commercial enterprise, and hence should not be used for reference. If you disagree with my assessment, opening a discussion on the article's talk page would be appropriate, but I'd suggest that the same information could certainly be found at other sources. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

John Lott
Hi Mark Shaw,

Please look over what I said in my latest post at Talk:John Lott. I believe that the truly analagous BLPs to compare Lott's to are other academics who also happen to do political commentary. In the four examples I provide of academics who also do political commentary from the left, none of them are characterized as "political liberals," as Lott is characterized as a "political conservative"--not just in the lead, but anywhere in their articles. Two of them do describe the subject's political orientation in the lead, but only as a self-characterization (I don't think Lott self-characterizes his politics). I believe that we should include material about Lott's politics in the body of the article, not the lead, and then describe how certain sources or certain individuals characterize him (since he is so rarely characterized as a conservative out of the thousands of news stories that mention him) to put the handling of his politics on par with the handling of his academic counterparts. Thanks for your consideration. Drrll (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is a choose-your-battles situation. The page as it now stands at least puts the characterization of Lott's political alignments a bit further down and removes the implication that his politics affect his academic work. I certainly won't object if you find support from others for your objective here, but as far as I'm personally concerned the current version is acceptable. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

palin
your edit summary got cut off - her joining assembly of god is already covered i....' how did the edit summary finish. Sayerslle (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ... is already covered in the "Personal Life" section." Mark Shaw (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * oh -why isn't it in the early biography section - its kind of buried, and no year given, where it is, still, thanks for finishing the edit summary . Sayerslle (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Alopecia
Reverted your revert. Don't understand why you assert it is "spam". Citation is to published review article by major figure in field in major journal. Note PMID, etc.. Very high up wikipedia:reliable sources hiearchy. Certainly better than assorted webpages, news articles,etc. that constitute most citations on this page. Belton1 (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, may have been a misunderstanding on my part. We'll see if anyone else who watches the page has anything to say about it, but I'll leave it for now. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Definition of gun safety
Hi Mark,

I am a newbie with wiki discourse so please bear with me as I get up to speed.

I just left the following note on a Talk page (with the references). If the editors do not feel that a sentence can be added to the wiki page acknowledging the current broader usage of "Gun safety" then I would like to nominate the wiki page to be checked for neutrality. I would be happy to do that if someone can explain how I get a notice posted on the wiki page.

Thanks, Bob

The definition of Gun Safety that is provided on the wiki page is overly restrictive and not consistent with current broader usage of the phrase. The overly restrictive definition (focused solely on ways to handle firearms to limit unintentional injuries) not only fails to capture current discussions on gun safety (as documented by the 10 web references below -- more can be provided) but limits discussion in a biased way. If this point cannot be acknowledged on the Gun Safety wiki page, then a notice should be posted that this page has been nominated to be checked for neutrality.

References:

1. "Justice worked on new gun safety recommendations" Associated Press, 17 December, 2012. http://news.yahoo.com/justice-worked-gun-safety-recommendations-205126767.html 2. "'Gun Safety,' Not 'Gun Control'", by James Fallows, 15 December, 2012. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/gun-safety-not-gun-control/266318/ 3. "School shooting puts more focus on gun safety", Ed Scannell of channel 14 news in North Carolina http://triangle.news14.com/content/top_stories/677086/school-shooting-puts-more-focus-on-gun-safety 4. "Joe Manchin, Trayvon Martin, and Barney Fife: Implications for Gun Safety" by James Fallows, 17 December, 2012. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/joe-manchin-trayvon-martin-and-barney-fife-implications-for-gun-safety/266364/ 5. "'Enough is enough': N.J. politicians call for gun safety measures after Connecticut shooting." by Steve Strunsky, The NJ Star-Ledger, 18 December, 2012. http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/12/enough_is_enough_nj_politician.html 6. "Can We Talk About Gun Safety Now?" by Jennifer Davis, Cofounder and President of the National Center on Time and Learning, 18 December, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-davis/gun-control_b_2321694.html 7. "Gun Safety", MedLine Plus, undated. The 7th recommendation is "Don't keep guns in your home if someone in your family has a mental illness, severe depression, or potential for violence." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/gunsafety.html 8. "Gun Safety", the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. This publication begins with the statement that "Having a firearm in the home can be a significant risk factor for injury and death in children. The decision to keep a firearm in the home is very serious and one that should not be made lightly. If you choose to keep a gun you must become fully aware about the risks of firearms to your family and others who visit your home." http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/gunsafe.pdf 9. Georgians for Gun Safety, undated. The preamble to the website notes that "Georgians for Gun Safety is a non-profit advocacy organization made up of concerned citizens working to reduce death and injuries by firearms in Georgia. While we focus on education and communication, we also try to bring balance to the gun safety debate in the Georgia General Assembly." http://www.georgiansforgunsafety.org/ 10. Arizonans for Gun Safety, undated. The preamble to the website notes that "AzGS is a non-profit, community-based organization dedicated to reducing gun deaths and injuries with common sense, prevention-oriented solutions. We have supporters in both Phoenix and Tucson representing health care, child advocacy groups, faith communities, law enforcement, education, parent groups and community organizations. Our mission is to engage individuals, organizations and public officials from diverse communities in a statewide campaign to prevent gun violence." http://www.azfgs.com/

Thanks, Bob Pond (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Bob Pond (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Bob Pond (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark,

I have inserted a sentence at the beginning of the article to acknowledge the current broader usage of the phrase "gun safety". This sentence is followed by a suggestion to refer to the Gun Politics article for a discussion of issues related to this broader usage of "gun safety". As you have suggested, I have placed on the Talk page for the article a discussion of the reasons why it is necessary to include these additional sentences to assure that the article is neutral and consistent with current usage. I have also included on the Talk page another 10 references (20 so far -- more can be provided) documenting current usage of a broader definition of "gun safety". If anyone objects to addition of the new sentences to the article then I would like to know how I can ask for other, including more editors to review the article for neutrality. Thanks, Bob Pond (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it alone myself, but will be surprised if this addition isn't reversed by another editor. First of all, you say "[t]he phrase 'gun safety' is now frequently used to refer to measures that go beyond the prevention of unintentional injury," but you don't say by whom. That's going to raise a flag. It might be better just to insert a a simple pointer to the gun-politics articles if you're really determined to add something like this to the article. Mark Shaw (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The sentences now identify those who currently use "gun safety" to refer to a broader range of measures intended to prevent firearms homicides and suicides as well as unintentional injuries. The references themselves identify these persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.18.227 (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I have posted a notice on the dispute resolution noticeboard. Bob Pond (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Robert Bork
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Bork&diff=prev&oldid=528823488] Try and be a little more careful next time? ;) Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Completely unintended. I have apologized to the editor. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Gun Safety". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)