Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vsmith (talk | contribs) at 12:12, 6 August 2012 (→3rr report: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello, Mark Marathon, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on this page and someone will drop by to help. You can also contact me if you wish by clicking "talk" to the right of my name. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your contribution to the article Dingo! Chrisrus (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

...and your more recent edit to adjust the "WP:UNDUE weight" given to older taxonomies the article Dingo! Chrisrus (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I think there may be a similar "WP:UNDUE weight" problem at the article New Guinea Singing Dog that could use a little of your WP:NPOV attention in much the same way. If New Guinea Singing Dog Warriors give you a hard time, stay frosty like Mr. Spock! Keep up the good work! Chrisrus (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Assorted info

G'day Mark, there are a few of us interested in Aussie flora - I'm in Sydney, Melburnian (talk · contribs) is in Victoria, Hesperian (talk · contribs) is in WA and Poyt448 (talk · contribs) is also in Sydney and likes rainforest flora. I can show you a few templates to bolster articles with. Also take a look at T:TDYK. If you start an article and buff it up to 1500 bytes/300 words, you can submit for a shot of 6 hours on the main page (with an interesting hook). I will see what I can do with any of yours. Then, if you want the stuff to keep, buffing to Good or Featured status acts like a "stable revision" that folks have agreed on. For an example, I have Banksia marginata as a candidate currently - see its talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Page titles

Hi Mark, I've come across your recently created lists of Acacia species and would like to remind you that per the WP:Naming conventions we use lower cases for all words in the article titles, except for proper names. I've moved your lists to new titles but for future pages you might want to go with lower case titles as well. Happy editing, De728631 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Thanks.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

See also WP:COI in case it might apply. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Morinda citrifolia. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Ronz (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Casuarina

Hi Mark, I changed the wording in the intro to better reflect the statement in the reference that the native status of this species in Madagascar in doubtful. 'Possibly native' doesn't accurately express this doubt, but rather makes it seem that it is relatively likely that the species is native. This is an important distinction as it has implications for the native range of the species, and reading that they are 'possibly native' to Madagascar is certainly odd and needs more explanation. I think this is worth a few extra words. Could also move this further down to 'distribution and habitat', but it should definitely be included. Let me know your thoughts, I'll look for them here. Cheers! Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Santos Reyes

Sorry Mark, I didn't mean to over-ride your undo of my edits on Santos Reyes. I hadn't looked at the history when I did it, so I assumed that I hadn't pressed the final "OK" on the edits. That's why I re-did the edits. I don't think I actually eliminated anything in the previous version, just reorganized. However, I am not that experienced with Misplaced Pages and I think my mistake was to do too much in one single edit. The practice seems to work more incrementally. Anyway, it's not my intention to get into an edit war with you, so apologies again if it seemed that way.

Pintupi Nine

Why do you insist on keeping the text '{huh??}' in the article? Dougg (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, looking back through the page history (sorry, I should have done that first) I see that you thought you were inserting a clarification tag. The clarification tag should have the form described at the Template:clarify page. Also I see that you think the text doesn't explain well enough how siblings can have two mothers. I'll try to re-word it to make the co-wife situation clearer, let me know what you think. Dougg (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But I just want to check the facts. As the article now reads, the children were all full-siblings, and thus offspring of one woman. Is this the case, or were they offspring of two different women, and thus not siblings at all? Thanks for clarifying this. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The children all have the same father, so are all siblings. Dougg (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, siblings share two parents. If the children share only one parent they are termed step-siblings or adoptive siblings. So the original confusion remains: are the children siblings, step siblings or adoptive siblings? We are supposed to be striving for encyclopaedic quality here. Words have meanings, and if that is not what we mean we shouldn't use that word. Why the reticence to use the term "step-sibling" if that is in fact what they are? Why be mysterious and use weasel words when it is so easy concise and clear? I am just as confused about the relationship status of these children as as when I originally inserted the clarification tags.Mark Marathon (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, words have meanings, perhaps you should check them before making such claims. A 'step-sibling' is a child of one's step-parent, and is not an actual blood relative. Siblings who share only one parent may be called 'half-siblings', but they are still siblings. I've checked the OED, the Macquarie Dictionary, the AHD, the Merriam-Webster, as well as WP. All agree that people are 'siblings' if they share at least one biological parent. Also, presumably, some of the children are half-siblings, and some are full siblings (although it may well be that they are all children of only one of the women and so are indeed all 'full siblings'). I don't think it really matters either way, they share a father and so within most kinship systems, including ours (and, most certainly, within their own kinship system), are considered brothers and sisters, ie siblings. And... 'adoptive siblings'!?? The article says the family was alone in the desert for around 20 years, and the kids were all in their teens when reunited with their community--how could they be adoptive?! Dougg (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, pal. Would you can the obnoxious language, please? Three hundred edits does not make you God-Emperor of Misplaced Pages. My goldfish has 300 edits.
Varlaam (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Carbon flux - Tropical rainforest

That was fast. I've removed the section under dispute as the editing group has not responded to your talk page concerns. If the section misrepresents the reference - then I'd say remove it. You are welcome to rewrite it in compliance with the reference. Vsmith (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Paper daisy

Thanks for this - I was hangin' for a wild photo rather than cultivar - can you note where it was taken? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Done.Mark Marathon (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. When you recently edited Tropical rainforest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fragmentation (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) 10:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

2,4-D author COI

Hi Mark Marathon,

I've posted on the 2,4-D talk page about the Dow Chemical study. I'm interested in your feedback.

– monolemma t – 21:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Eucalyptus

Your recent editing history at Eucalyptus 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. 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. --Mike18xx (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning on Tree

Your recent editing history at Tree shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. 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. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:11, 3 August 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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

What the heck? I only reverted to my version 3 times so I did not violate the three reverts rule. I opened a lengthy section on the article talk page explaining what I was doing, and the other editor refused to discuss it there. I opened a section on the editor's talk page, and his only response was to call me a jackass. And i get blocked? Seriously, what the hell more can be done than attempting to find consensus on both the article talk page and the user's talk page?

Decline reason:

First off, don't even bother trying to argue if you broke 3RR or not. 3RR is but one specific bright line application of the edit warring policy. Users can be and are blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR. The logged reason for your block is edit warring, the notice on your page says edit warring, you have not said anything that indicates you were not edit warring. Attempting to open a discussion is not an excuse to continue edit warring. In the future try asking for protection or dispute resolution instead. Edit warring is always the wrong response. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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 four times in all. When you gave me that silly warning (that's not "opening a section", that's templating the regulars) I had reverted twice, and you were at three. Then you reverted again. That's four. They're all listed on the AN3 noticeboard. "The other editor refused to discuss it there"--the "other editor" is not me, it's Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), with whom you should have discussed how to improve the article. Such a wholesale revert as you did is rarely productive, as these events have proven. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Tree

I notice that you did not like my rewrite of the article Tree. Are you aware of the fact that in creating it I retained the content of the two main sections, turning them into articles named Record breaking trees and Tree health?

I believe the new version of Tree was a considerable improvement on the original and it was I who nominated the new version for GA, a bit prematurely as it turned out. If there were any particular facts in the article that you thought I had got wrong, you could have dealt with them individually. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

3rr report

I've removed your attempt at filing an edit warring report here for two reasons: first it was incomplete and basically messed up and second and more important, the editing you are reporting is rather stale and pointless as the page (tree) is under full protection. Vsmith (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)