Hi MarnetteD, in looking over the edits of a large number of inter-connected IPs that all seem to engage in frequent disruption I came across this post of yours which indicated to me that you may be familiar with the same editor/editors I am tracing. I was wondering if you could give me a little background for this particular post and perhaps could you explain whether the "favorite football team" is always the same team or whether it is several different ones.

The person I am examining (I think it's a single individual who edits from a cloud of dynamic IPs) seems to be a fanatic about the Shamrock Rovers. His MO includes removal of all tags requesting improvement to or additional sources and the un-sourced insertion of information he claims to have personal knowledge of despite repeated requests to provide RSes. He is a single-minded edit warrior and refuses to get the point until the page is protected from his constant un-sourced additions. I have noticed that he has gone on sprees of adding "favorite football" information to celebrities and actors and that's how I came across your edit. Any information you can provide on this character would be very helpful. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My experience was with the Colm Meaney article and that was pretty much it. The fact that I haven't encountered this pest very often just means that I don't have the articles they like to hit on my watchlist. Although its been awhile I think that the various IP's located to Dublin and we joked once about this yahoo traipsing around town to use different computers to make edits. I'm afraid I don't have much more info for you - many apologies. I can suggest that you take this to the admin who helped me User talk:HJ Mitchell and see if he has any ideas. You could also make a post at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard in case others have encountered the same problem. Again sorry I wasn't of more help and good luck in dealing with this and many thanks for your efforts! Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all the same. I'll contact HJ Mitchell. Happy editing. -Thibbs (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Marnette, blocked IP 90.218.255.152 has turned up again as IP 90.201.251.31 (both from West Sussex) making the same daft edits. Can we get them blocked? Span (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi S. First off I don't know what time zone you edit from so if this reply seems late my apologies. Second my Sunday is busy off wiki so I can't follow up as thoroughly as I would wish. I have two suggestions. First, you can notify the admins who previously blocked the IPs to let them know that disruptive editing has resumed after the blocks expired. Next I would say that you could also report them to AIV as long as you make sure to include a list of the other IPs that they have edited from so that admins there will know that this is a sock situation as well as disruptive editing. Only thing to be aware of there is - depending on the admin - some might ask that you issue warnings to the new one - I know that can be frustrating. One other suggestion when you post about these IPs you might use either this template {{userlinks|IP number}} or this one {{IPvandal|IP number}}. As you can see 90.201.251.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It brings up all manner of links that allow admins (and even regular editors for that matter) to check things without having to go and search for an edit made by that IP. If you get a chance let me know how things go. If things stay the same I will try and make some reports tomorrow when I have more time. Thanks for your vigilance in trying to protect Wikipedia from this stuff and I hope you have a July full of fun off wiki and on. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 16:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Span (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Marnette, I see by your User Page that you are a Beethoven fan. I wanted to let you know (if you already didn't) that the company, Harmonia Mundi (France), issued a 7CD set of the complete symphonies of Beethoven as transcribed for piano by Franz Liszt. Extraordinary! I especially like the Pastorale played by Michel Dalberto. It is the 5th disk in the collection, and its disc number is HMX-2901196. In fact, I have it playing right now as I write this. Enjoy! - Michael David (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

OK so, in addition to being computer-challenged, my memory needs some work. Don't pick on me, I'm a Senior Citizen :-). The most important thing is that you are enjoying the music. My best to you. He healthy, Michael David (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, my friend. I need your advice on this. I have an audio file of Rod Serling speaking these famous words from his TV program, "The Twilight Zone":

"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosives and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy. And a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own."

I'd be happy to send you a copy if you like. My question is this: Could this audio file be placed in Serling's Wikipedia Article Page, or on the "Twilight Zone" Page? Michael David (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Marnette. I've just posted the question on the Wiki Television Project's Talk Page. Be healthy, Michael David (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, again, Marnette. Good idea, giving the question to the techincal people. I just hope I can understand whatever advice they give :-) - Michael David (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

[[|left|thumb|A Tiger Moth flies underneath a bridge on the under-construction M40 in 1968 for a live-action stunt from the film Thunderbird 6.]]

	Wishing you a (belated) happy Independence Day!
	Hello again! Seeing this photo' earlier this morning, made me gasp. Hope all is well over there with you, and a (belated) happy Independence Day! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• You too. I remembered that you liked watching the (few) Six Nations matches that they broadcast in the United States. Thanks for the hyperlink above (Australian 'league') – and I shall expect the US to do even better in the next Rugby Union World Cup. Each year they get better and better, which is remarkable considering how few play the game. I shall enjoy learning more about 'Union' over on your side. Any suggestions?

Best wishes, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• • That is helpful. Thanks! Good editing! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see User talk:180.251.29.12 for an update. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, there. Yep, I'm still on staff at "Camp Quest West" and am off the net starting 2morrow Sat late morning the 7th till Sunday the 15th. 2nite, I'm seeing The Magic Flute at SF Opera - won some fancy seats thereof in a raffle. Later,--WickerGuy (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked 90.199.99.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), would you mind going through and cleaning up his mess? I really am exceedingly lazy. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I only just got online today. Thanks for the block and it looks like the ever reliable Republican Jacobite zapped all the edits so many thanks to him also. Until the next time Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Marnette! I'm not as active on wikipedia as much as I used too, but people like that always keep me coming back to make sure not too much nonsense is happening. Thanks for your help! Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Your work - whenever you have time to give it - is much appreciated. As frustrating as dealing with Pe is it is more frustrating to never have enough money to get all the DVDs that we want from the Criterion Collection :-) Their release last month of Harold and Maude is a treat. Cheers and best wishes to you on Wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 11:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I just came across this editor today, seeing that he had altered the genre of The Departed. Taking a look at his contributions, I see that obsessing over genres is his main activity. This reminds me of someone... what was his name again? He seemed to originate somewhere in South America. This might be someone we want to keep an eye on. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 13:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion here makes me even more suspicious. First, we see the all-too-familiar Brazilian IP address, which is outed by Andrzejbanas as Pe. Then, StarShop makes his first contribution to the discussion, supporting the IP's view that the film is an adventure film. This was StarShop's second contribution overall. I find this coincidence very convenient. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 13:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Yes, we will keep an eye on him and decide if there is any real reason for concern.

Thanks, also, for the note regarding JC. Not sure why he would decide to involve himself.

Best of luck at the dentist. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 13:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I brought this matter to the attention of an administrator here, with a proposal for moving forward. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I need some dental work myself, and dread the very thought of it.

I have never put together an SPI report myself, but I am not surprised that they would be tedious and time-consuming. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Gah. Thanks for bringing the attention of the report to me. This user has been on my tail since at least 2008. I see the recent conversation about wanting to be a good editor now, but he's done this before. When he doesn't get his way by not reading rules then he goes back to his vandalizing ways. I'd try and dig out these statements, but he's posted through dozens of IPs before, and it's hard to find specific incidents. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes! I've been keeping track of his updates and your quick undos. Great job! He already tried to edit the action list again with another anon IP, but it's been removed. He's hard to keep track of, but he does keep on coming back to his favourite pages to vandalize, so he'll be found again soon enough if he decides to return. Again, great work!Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I cannot discuss the matter here on your talk page, but if you would email me at uno1dos2tres3quatro4@gmail.com (or simply post your email address below this message) I would greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.239.63.5 (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope that things go well for you in Framingham but if you think I am going to respond to this you are sadly mistaken. MarnetteD | Talk 04:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello sir,

A quick question for you. When the BBC Television Shakespeare originally aired, two factual series accompanied it - Prefaces to Shakespeare and Shakespeare in Perspective. Prefaces were personal introductions to the various plays by actors and directors and what not which aired on Radio 4 the night before the initial TV screening of the respective episode. Perspective was a 25 minute contextual setting intro to each play presented by historians, academics, actors etc etc which aired immediately before each screening. Now, if you check out these two links:

here

and

here

you'll find info on every episode of both Prefaces and Perspective. My question is, do you think any of this info is worth including in the BBC TV Shakespeare article and/or the Shakespeare on TV article I'm currently working on. I was prompted to ask by the recent Shakespeare Uncovered series on BBC 4 which had six one hour long episodes on Richard II, both parts of Henry IV, Hamlet, The Tempest, Macbeth and Shakespeare's Female characters. So, any thoughts. Thanks. Bertaut (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, no word on a date yet, but you will, I'm sure, be delighted to hear that the Henriad recently done by the BBC is going to be screened on PBS as part of the Great Performances series. It's also going to be released on R2 DVD if you can't watch it on PBS (you can keep an eye on Amazon.co.uk). I would highly recommend you get it, it far surpasses both Age of Kings and the BBC Television Shakespeare adaptations, and the Henry V episode is almost (I say almost!) on a par with Branagh. Keep an eye on the PBS website. In an unrelated topic, I'm actually back living in Dublin now, so my opportunities for live Shakespeare (or Elizabethan drama in general) are sadly few and far between. Most of his play have never been staged in Dublin, outside the usual suspects - the major tragedies, Midsummer, The Tempest etc etc etc. 17:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Doctor Who for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that there should probably be a centralized discussion coordinated by the television and film WikiProjects to arrive at a consensus about how TV films should be disambiguated, and how they should be treated relative to theatrical and other (direct-to-video, for example) releases. Right now, it seems as if the general opinion among the film-project editors is that a film is a film, whatever the source--which I was under the impression, apparently erroneously, was the general consensus--while the television naming guidelines suggest that made-for-TV films should be treated as a distinct group. I don't have a dog in this hunt--I'm willing to go along with whatever the consensus is. But right now the article-naming is all over the board, with most TV films disambiguated as just (film) or ([year] film), and a small but significant number dabbed as (television film) or (TV film). There should be some sort of agreement on a reasonable and consistent naming policy for TV films. Regards,--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I too wish there was an agreement and that the various MoS's (film, TV and DAB to name but three) noted such. Sadly, I'm not sure that you are going to be able to get such a thing. The film and TV project membership has dwindled and I sometimes see messages go up on their talkpages that never get replied to. The DAB project is more active so you might be able to get some input from them. I would disagree with your assertion about the general opinion of the film project. Having been a member for over 6 years I don't remember seeing that expressed. But, I don't have anymore empirical evidence for that than you do - and let me apologize because this statement sounds inflammatory and I don't mean it to be that, I just can't think of better wording at the moment. The last major discussion that I can remember was over whether the "Film" and the "Television Film" infoboxes should be standardized to be the same and, if memory serves, the conversation just petered out. I'm sorry that I can't link you to that but I can't remember where the discussion took place and I am a bit pressed for time. There are differences between the two like "air date" and "release date" being two different things. Also the two formats are quite different for one thing TV films (granted not all) plan for commercial breaks. IMO so that the naming conventions are accurate "TV film" should be included DABing and article but I don't know if either project would want to move 100s of articles. On the other hand making sure that the words are included in any future articles would be a good thing. Again, IMO it looks silly, lazy and/or bad to have TV items listed in a section titled film - I have to fix that in filmographies that have split the two all the time. In fact that might be a solution. If you combined the two section into "Beauty and the Beast on screen" (as with this section Hamlet on screen#List of screen performances) you could them have both formats listed together in chrono order. If you want to start a centralized discussion about this I say more power to you. I will be happy to add my thoughts. Life off wiki has somethings going on that shorten my online time so I have to go. I fear that what I have posted here is jumbled and frenetic. Again my apologies. Cheers and continued happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right: I hadn't noticed the "preceded by" field was showing up. The trouble I was having with the TV infobox was that no studio field was appearing, just "distributor," which would be a network or, in the case of syndicated shows, the syndication company. I'm loathe to make changes to infoboxes, since I'm sure it involves lengthy discussion. You seem more experienced in this respect: Is a "studio" not there for a reason, or did it just fall through the cracks? Thanks for any information or help. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a coincidence as - a bit like the question above - we have two different projects that are aiming to do different things. I was typing a longer answer but then I remembered that we may have a simpler solution. If you use Template:Infobox television film you will see that it has all the fields that you are looking for (I think). I probably should have used it when I made my change months ago. I hope that this helps. Regards. MarnetteD | Talk 00:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks perfect! Thank you for pointing me in the right direction! Tomorrow I'll get started transferring some things to this box. Continued best wishes for good Wiki'ing! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that it looks like it will work. Cheers and happy editing to you too. MarnetteD | Talk 03:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you removed several external links that I have added to pages related to the Barsoom Series from Edgar Rice Burroughs without any explanation. I have commented on the talk pages why I have added the links, but seems that you did not read the comment. Can you please give me your opinion on this and if you agree to my comment restore the links. Thank you in advance.

The comment was:

I added an external link to my blog page that is only intended to make available a better formated version of the book. Since no other reasonably formated version of the book is linked here and therefore easily available to the reader of the article, I believe that this link actually is complying with the scope of wikipedia - making information available to everyone. Please let me know your opinion and accept my apologies if I am wrong and let me know what better way is to make the epub version of the book easily available to everyone. I am new to wikipedia. RC87 (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that we don't normally link to blogs. Based on your explanation please feel free to restore the links in question. I do not have any of those pages on my watchlist (which is fairly hefty as it is) thus, I did not see your earlier posts. Cheers and continued happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 14:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, see WP:ELNO item 11. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition Redrose64. If you are still onWiki (or when you get back here) perhaps you could take a look at the site in question [1] and see it it meets the criteria for inclusion. I'll strike my comment about restoring the links until you have a chance to reply. As ever, I appreciate your vigilance and your assistance. MarnetteD | Talk 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will wait for a decision.RC87 (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have concerns over the copyright status of the eBooks linked from this blog. As I understand it, under U.S. law his works are copyrighted for 95 years from the date of publication: therefore anything published on or after December 14, 1929 is still in copyright; this therefore applies to most of the books listed on that blog. See WP:ELNEVER. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I really hope not. I do not want to break any law. But how can the text be freely available from Project Gutenberg if they are not out of copyright? I have used in all cases the text from Project Gutenberg - according to their license.RC87 (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually the Copyright articles states: "In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain. In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain." So what I believe is that these books are falling one of the two categories. Otherwise they could not be available on Project Gutenberg. RC87 (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• ... and this edit summary just made me side burst. Cheers and have a great weekend~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought that you would appreciate it. Cheers back at ya!! MarnetteD | Talk 18:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! DonQuixote (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Here you go! Hope you like my litle improvisation :) Glimmer721 ^talk 22:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This user knows that bowties have been cool since 1966.

Hey there, MarnetteD! Thanks again for keeping track of this character - I'm thinking of restructuring the page to a year-by-year or month-by-month format after dealing with an even more insidious vandal who is active almost daily and has been for years. Behold the horror that is "The Hanoi Vandal". While our VCV chum is busy obsessively fabricating film and TV credits, this guy's... a music lover. I just caught him for the umpteenth time trying to falsify Eagles credits,[2] one of his many favorite targets. These two are similar in quite a few ways, and I sometimes get confused between the two. Anyhoo, your efforts against the VCV are appreciated as usual. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey! Have you been keeping track of what the red letters in the Lewis credits spell? I had no idea they were anything but decorative until I saw the note in the Endeavour article. Then I nearly died laughing when I saw they spelled "Starsky and Hutch" in the last episode credits. It would be fun to know what they all are. Spotted Dexter in all four episodes, which is a record for me. --Drmargi (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't know about them? Amazing! In a word: PROJECT! We should go to e-mail. --Drmargi (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

E-mail is back on. I'm not sure how it got turned off, to be honest. --Drmargi (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. Do you still want me to take a look at the Macbeth edits or did yourself and Tom sort it out? Bertaut (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A Request for Comment has been posted for an article on which you have been an editor. If you wish to comment, go to Talk:Isle_of_Wight_Academy#RFC_regarding_mention_of_segregation_academy_in_lead_paragraph.2C_parallel_version_of_history.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, buddy! While you were busy flushing trolls, I was busy reporting to ANI. I barely got the report filed when the little stinker left a threat on my talk page, too! We may want to flesh this out a bit; take a peek and see what you think. --Drmargi (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I added the info that I have at your post. Unfortunately the thread may get shut down as not an ANI problem but I sure appreciate you looking out for me on this. The whole thing has been going on for a while and it really should stop but I don't know how difficult getting things done is going to be. It is late and I'm fighting off the sandman. Thanks again MarnetteD | Talk 07:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I went to ANI because of the legal threats, which have been handled there a number of times recently; that was the precipitating act from what I could tell. Did you do an SPI report? If that doesn't fly, we've got 3RR to fall back on. His goose seems fairly well cooked. --Drmargi (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was proper to take it there because of the legal threats I just don't know what the reaction will be. I made a post (somewhat in haste heehee) there to try and give more background to what is going on and we will see what happens. Again thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 07:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We ec'd when you were posting. I added some similar material, and bit more. As you say, we shall see... --Drmargi (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Gosh! I went to take a nap and missed all the fun. I see both IP's are blocked now. I noticed 216 has leaped to 64's defence (their spelling, I noted, ahem!) and is now blocked, too. Good. Anyway, glad to see that problem is on ice for a couple months! --Drmargi (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it was one of the quicker boomerangs that I've seen. The 64 IP is only blocked for a few more days so things may pick up again but now that the connection has been made we may be able to shorten the drama (ie waste of - when we could be doing normal editing) time. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I made a few notes on the SPI case just in case it's reopened. Nothing major, but thoughts I don't want to lose. It's been a funky day that way; Aussie Legend and I have another one in the midst of frenzied activity related to Ramsay's new show Hotel Hell. He's decided Aussie, another editor and I are colluding, with no proof of course. It's crazy IP day at Wikipedia! Stay cool! --Drmargi (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

okay i figured out how to source things so i sourced kasatka's pregnancyWickedangry (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

please stop deleting my edits. they were sourced just like you told me to do. Wickedangry (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS. As of this moment you have yet to start a conversation on a talk page to express why this information should be in the article. Current consensus is that it should not be there. Continual reentry without gaining a new consensus can be seen as edit warring. Wikipedia is a community with various policies as to how things work. If you learn about them it will make things easier, or at least more understandable. MarnetteD | Talk 04:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Re the 'edit war' going on over her 'birth name', see here, which I reverted per your talk page comment. I also welcomed 99.171.231.213 (talk · contribs), warned them about edit warring, and suggested (with a link to it) that they look at your reply to their comment on the talk page. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 07:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks 220 I appreciate your keeping me up to date on this. It can be difficult to deal with someone with a bee in their bonnet especially when the evidence shows that the bee has picked a flower without any pollen on it. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 14:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries. (" ... bee has picked a flower without any pollen on it", interesting analogy! :-D) - 220 of ^Borg 16:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sooo sorry about that!! ;(

I didn't know XD thanx for telling me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel5D (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your cleaning up all my edits....I think it's good that you did because of the flags but for example mephisto was a west german/hungarian film you could have just removed the flag not west germany too.Rachel5D (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh....thanx!

sorry and thank you for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel5D (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

you rock! XD just let me know any time I mess up on here and I will learn from you! You are like a sensei. lol! any way thanx i will show my appreciation by giving you this kitteh!

Rachel5D (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, re this edit - did you source it to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000? If so, has your count leapt up unexpectedly? Mine did: see Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits#Count is off.

BTW I've just bought my first two "Big Finish" CDs - Earth Aid and Thin Ice. Not played them yet though, need to find 4 hours free. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi RR. No I sourced it to the X!s edit counter. I have found that one to be accurate over the years and I like it because it also lists the edits made to articles that have been deleted which the edit count on the "My preferences" page does not. I noticed something weird with the "List Of Wikipedians by # of edits" this past Wednesday. It had always been behind the edit counter by +/- 100 edits (and I had always put that down to replication lag) but on Wed that count jumped ahead by 500 or so edits. That is one reason that I haven't updated the editcountitis userbox on my page. I am hoping that the list corrects itself. BTW in that userbox if you click on the underlined "59000 edit" it should take you to the X!s edit counter. You might already know that but I mention it just in case. I'm glad that I wasn't the only one that caught the edit count being off by so much. Cheer and have a nice weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 20:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.16.200 (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Pursuant to the above-mentioned complaint, please be more careful in wholesale reverting of edits and make sure you are providing clear and correct reasoning to the person you are reverting. For example, you removed the Malcolm source on the grounds that it is not verifiable, but I'm not sure how that's accurate. Does that mean you looked up the source and it didn't contain the stated information? A source isn't required to be online to be considered verifiable. I understand that when you have a long history of removing vandalism and misinformation from a page (I've had many pages on my watchlist since 2007) it's easy to see an IP edit and just remove it rather than verifying and giving the benefit of the doubt. But many times, these editors do provide useful and correct information. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

My edit summaries were quite clear. Especially the one that recommended that the IP use a sandbox or the show preview command rather than to continually add unsourced information. My last two edits to the page were a mistake and were made late at night just before I logged off and for those two and that one those I apologize. The rest of the removals were of changes that did not come with sources and per many of our policies their removal was correct. MarnetteD | Talk 21:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Marnette!

I saw the latest round of nonsense with the sock's talk page and had a little word with the blocking editor, DennisBrown. He's now removed talk page access, extended the block to six months (I didn't expect that big an extension!) and blanked the page. That ought to slow him down for a while. --Drmargi (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I saw that DennisBrown had shut things down which was quite nice of him. Interesting accusation that the three of us are the same person and that we always edit the same articles. Especially since I've never touched Iron Chef and many other of the TV series articles that you work or any of the British rail articles that Redrose does such a good job with. On the other hand it is a bit of an honor and an honour to be compared to two excellent Wikipedians like yourselves. Excitement is building here for new episodes of Dr Who this weekend and Person of Interest at the end of next month. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't mind my having taken the bull by the horns, but the situation did not warrant waiting. I'm surprised DB was so assertive; he's usually more tentative, but he really took care of business tonight, thank goodness. I missed the post saying we were all the same person; 'tis I who is in the lofty company! I am SO ready for the Doctor and Reese/Finch to return. No POI reruns the next two Thursdays because of the conventions (I will not make hot air jokes...); I'm headed to one of the Palm Springs area resorts for a couple nights with iPad full of POI episodes to re-watch. Now to figure out how to get DW to my friend in South Africa on a Fullbright. Hmmm... --Drmargi (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops I meant to link to his assertion in my message above since the IP had been accusing RR and me of being socks for some time but it was here [3] that he brought you into the mix. Have a marvelous time in PS!!! MarnetteD | Talk 13:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you marathoning in anticipation? Eeeek! --Drmargi (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that I may beat you both to it - Asylum of the Daleks starts at 19:20 BST tomorrow, that's 18:20 UTC. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What a pal, lord it over us! (He, he!) I have to wait until 6:00 pm Pacific time. But we've got a two-day marathon of the first two season going. --Drmargi (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea for all of us in anticipation and many thnx for stopping by. Back at the beginning of the month I went all the way back to "Rose" to start my marathon since it has now been a few years since I've watched those new series episodes. Should be finishing up at just the right moment tomorrow. Drmargi not only do we have to wait several hours (Waaay better then the two years I used to have to wait in the 80's :-)) but Redrose64 doesn't have to put up with obnoxious commercial breaks. I get around that by way of the glories of the DVR where I can start it recording, wait about 15 minutes and then pick up watching from the start and fast forward through those ads. This lets me finish up at roughly the same time as the actual transmission. Is that O/C or what? Cheers to all of us and all fans of the Doctor everywhere!!!! MarnetteD | Talk 22:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoo-hoo! Gonna fill my TARDIS cookie jar with popcorn! Cheers! DonQuixote (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I shall have ice cream. My local supermarket has a two for GBP 5.00 deal on Ben & Jerry's 500 millilitres (18 imp fl oz; 17 US fl oz) tubs. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

OMG, that's what I do, too! Same with POI. Works like a charm. I'm laying in fixings for the marathon, although I left my Dalek on my desk at work!! --Drmargi (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

My friend is coming over and we're going to try fish fingers and custard! Crossing my fingers that the rain from Hurricane Isaac doesn't make the power go out during the broadcast. Also, this was released today, which is hilarious (especially as I am a bowler myself). Glimmer721 ^talk 00:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good time is going to be had by all. I have to hold off on the snacks as my friends annual pig roast is the next day and it is such a big shindig that I am baking two different cheesecakes for it. I do appreciate everyone stopping by to say hi and thanks for the youtube link Glimmer721 best wishes on the power staying on!! MarnetteD | Talk 02:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Glimmer, I just HOWLED with laughter at the bowling video. Nerdist has a whole Doctor Who weekend thing going that I'm going to check out. Pig roast? That sounds fab! But G, I do hope you have a Plan B for fish fingers, etc. DonQ, I want your cookie jar! --Drmargi (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how many of you are doing the DVDs and their extras for the classic series so I'll pass on the following story. The recent release of Planet of Giants included an interview with Verity Lambert recorded in 2003. She was commenting on the actors who played the Dr after Hartnell. About Tom Baker she said (paraphrasing) "When he was cast I thought he was too young (he was 40) but he took hold of the role and brought some interesting things to it." After Matt's first season I was saying virtually the same thing about him. Fun coincidence. Tick Tick its getting closer. MarnetteD | Talk 04:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I remember hearing that quote when they hired Matt Smith. I also remember thinking they were mad when they chose him; shows you what I know. Going back to Glimmer's fish fingers and custard, Alton Brown, who is a major Who fan, tweeted the following: [4]. He's doing a feature for Nerdist tomorrow called "Dork Fork" (no link yet). The other link in the tweet is to, wait for it, the recipe. Good Eats meets Doctor Who! --Drmargi (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

We already have a recipie, but that's awesome! I love Good Eats, didn't know Alton Brown was a fan. He does always wear bowties... also I'm reading Gareth Roberts' novelization of Shada right now and really enjoying it. He did manage to capture Adams' voice very well. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I was just pointing out that he'd even written a recipe. The whole AB as Whovian thing seems to have emerged recently, when he started wearing bow ties on ICA, but it certainly fits him. --Drmargi (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

BAN HIM! BAN HIM!! Hehe, that's great! Have a good week too! Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 18:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Assassination_Games#Edit_war and do not edit the article till there is clear consensus. Debresser (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you look at the dates, reason for the reverts and the range block? This warning is clearly inappropriate -- you might want to look a the IP's edit history. --Drmargi (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Drmargi for trying to explain things to Debresser. Debresser it would be nice if you would do some investigation before making a post like this. There is an IP hopping editor from Burton-on-Trent who consistently edits articles ignoring the MoS. This has been going on for months and all attempts to communicate with the person have been ignored. There are several editors and admins who are now aware of the problem and this persons edits are reverted on site and there have been individual and range blocks applied. I know that you are a good editor and have WikiP's best interests at heart. I hope that you can understand the same about me. If something like this comes up again please feel free to ask what is going on instead of assuming things. Cheers to you both and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 14:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That's why I responded; because I do know Debresser to be a good editor, and his failure to note the dates alone surprised me. --Drmargi (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI for both of you. Since this is an ongoing problem I wanted you to know that I have created this page User:MarnetteD/Burton-on-Trent Vandal so that we can keep track of the numerous IPs that have been and will be used by this person. Drmargi I can't remember the IPs ever hitting TV articles so you may not bump into this editor very often. Debresser you have at least one of the film pages that gets hit on your watchlist so you will almost certainly see their edits again. In either case feel free to add to it if you encounter them again. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think I'd most likely bump into him by chance, but will keep an eye peeled. Thanks for the heads up. --Drmargi (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I am glad you did this, and I will assist in the effort however possible. Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

About this edit summary

From my understanding the SOP regarding these articles is just to redirect. I'll go ahead and start a discussion on this in the Fictional Characters WikiProject Talk, but I'm pretty sure it will be unanimous to merge.

As far as how I operate, in this case I usually just redirect the character and then try to re-build content on the character in a character list article or in the main article. Only if/when there is enough content do I branch out again.

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• I just noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randle McMurphy - How on earth was this not overturned? It may be a major character, yes, but surely there would be references to this, right? Anyway I'll do the article a favor and sometime today and check out Google Books. You may ask "why didn't you do that in the first place?" But not everyone has the time and the energy to do this in every instance, and generally the burden of the effort of keeping the article falls on the editors who wish to keep it. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I have had a busy day. Please proceed as you see fit. You have been around longer than I have so you probably remember a time when there was more leeway for this kind of article. I thought that there were enough differences between RPM in the book, play and film to sustain the article but perhaps not. I surely do understand the "time and energy" statement. Also it tends to get forgotten that we are volunteers as well. Thanks for the thoroughness of your explanation and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome :) - The main criterion for keeping an article as a standalone is: Is there commentary in secondary sources (books, newspapers, journal articles, etc.). On some occasions one can add enough commentary about conception and design from the creators to warrant an article split too (i.e. List of Death Note characters has several standalone articles partly due to the info in Death Note 13: How to Read and partly due to reviews of Death Note media) - there are differences between versions, but the determining factor is the primary source creation and conception and the secondary source analysis and reception. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, you've clearly not even bothered to look or understand the changes before hitting revert. Please put an appropriate amount of diligence into reverting others changes. 87.254.84.65 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Look you are clearly editing against the MoS. If you are a new editor I suggest you take the WP:TUTORIAL and read up on how things are done here before proceeding. MarnetteD | Talk 03:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please cite a section of the MOS that I am violating. Further, please note that you specified a reason why you believed my edits might not be necessary, which is a level far below that required for reverting.87.254.84.65 (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

My edit summaries are quite clear. You have yet to provide any justification for any of your edits. Piping is not needed on the church name and the breaks between lines in quotes are common usage. Again read up before proceeding is your best course of action. MarnetteD | Talk 03:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The name of the article in question, St. Mark's Church, Dublin includes the dot. Piping to remove the dot violates existing consensus to use the dot. I have attempted a compromise, using a redirect St Mark's Church, Dublin instead of a pipe. The church's own website clearly supports use of "St" without the dot.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts Jeff. We usually go with what our article uses. As we usually require secondary sources the churches website might not be the best place to go. I would be interested to know whether the church used the abbreviation at the time of Wilde's christening and whether the various biographers used it as well. MarnetteD | Talk 03:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde is a notable British figure and I believe the page to be written in (British) English, which does not add a full stop after an abbreviation ending in the same letter as the original. I corrected this in other cases too. Further, as this appears to be a minor style issue, simply hitting revert because someone's decided that they don't like the edit, not because it is incorrect, is inappropriate. This had obviously occurred because I'm editing anonymously, and it isn't the first time to have happened. The original editor needs to stop waving his sword around, get off his horse, and realise that he's here to make the articles better, not wield power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.84.65 (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

MarnetteD is not the original editor of this article. That honor goes to 217.126.156.xxx, in this edit over ten years ago.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Re using br tags rather than the poem tag, please read mw:Extension:Poem. That extension has been in place on this wiki for over five years.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No one is waving a sword and, in spite of continued insults, I have given advice on where to go to find how things are done around here as has Jeff. It seems the IP has continually revert without providing any edit summaries and, one last time, I can only suggest that you read how things are done before proceeding. MarnetteD | Talk 03:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jeff re the link regarding poems does that also apply to the use of <blockquote></blockquote>. If so than either of you may feel free to remove them. MarnetteD | Talk 03:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, why was this edit malformed? Per MOS:SECTIONS, fourth bullet, the IP was correct to move the <ref>...</ref> out of the heading. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanx for catching my mistake. My eyes thought they had moved it into the header so they must have been crossed. Fixed now but if I error like that again plz feel free to fix it since the time difference means that you will often catch something like this while I'm still asleep. I feel guilty having left this in the incorrect format for so long. Who would have thought that, of all the actors from the first season of Red Dwarf, Mark Williams would wind up being one with such a high profile? Many apologies and thanx again. MarnetteD | Talk 14:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess you've missed much of the stuff that the others did since. For example, Craig Charles is currently a regular on Coronation Street, which although a soap, is one of the highest-rating drama series on British TV. Chris Barrie has done a lot of audio-only work, both on the radio and on animated TV - his impressions of prominent politicians are particularly well-known. Radio is an important medium, and the national station BBC Radio 4, whilst primarily serious, has comedy and drama too; among these have been several shows featuring the vocal talents of Chris Barrie. It goes further: Mitchell and Webb, who voiced the two robots in "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship", have done several shows together for Radio 4 as well as for TV. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right we got a couple of Chris Barrie's sitcoms but not much else. Missing the radio dramas and comedies (as well as theatrical performances) is one of the banes of being a devotee of UK actors in the US. I guess by "high profile" I'm referring to the fact that Williams getting to play Arthur Weasley means that there will be a large number of people who will recognize him when he shows up in other shows - even if they can't remember his name. I guess the same can be said about David Bradley. One of our PBS stations carried EastEnders for years but the only time that Corrie ever made it onto US screens was back in the 80s when the cable station USA Network carried it for a few months. Your mention of M&W doing the voices of the robots last night brings up one more "bur under the saddle" for me. BBC America shoves the credits to the right and rolls them by at high speed (as a long time credits reader I have hated that for years) and I have to wait for the DVDs (or read our articles, of course) to see the cast list. Thanks for filling me in on all their work!! MarnetteD | Talk 17:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you've heard of Ideal, but two semi-regular characters in that are played by David Bradley and Sunetra Sarker, both of whom were also in "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship". --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks interesting. I may have to adjust my budget so that I can pick it up from Amazon UK down the road. One of the first things I can remember seeing Bradley in is the excellent Our Friends in the North. More than a couple members of that cast have gone on to big, big things. Thanks for the recommendation. MarnetteD | Talk 19:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't use "big big" in that fashion. Many brilliant actors can spend their whole career on the stage and do "big big" things. What I'm driving at is when they get cast in big money projects a larger audience gets to see their talents. Most of that audience won't go and search out other performances - be that earlier ones or current ones in other venues, but, at least they will have seen and appreciated their work once. MarnetteD | Talk 19:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes; Elisabeth Sladen was primarily a theatre actor, who had a handful of TV roles - one of which overshadows all her other work. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I was fascinated reading her autobiography. Especially how, in the summers of 1962 and 63, she was enrolled with the London Youth Theatre. Other members included Simon Ward, Kenneth Cranham, Diana Quick, Michael Cadman, Hywel Bennett and Helen Mirren. What must it have been like to be in an audience watching all that budding talent onstage. MarnetteD | Talk 01:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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. 88.110.251.59 (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Punitive v preventative the eternal conundrum

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Silent Running. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. --Chris (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). MarnetteD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: The fourth edit was NOT a reversion. It blended the country of the film that the IP wanted to put in with the rest of the original lede. Why no one has noticed that is beyond me at this time but I did not - repeat did not - revert to the original version. Decline reason: You were edit warring, which is what you are blocked for. You've been here long enough to know what edit warring is. --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:24, 13 September 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. Please note that this decline did not show up after you hit save Jpgordon. I had to go into the edit history to find that you did not look at all that occurred in the edits on that article. MarnetteD | Talk 02:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC) BTW if you take a look at the edit history of the article in question [5] you will see that the Manchester editor editied from two IPs and will, likely, change their IP again so their block is meaningless. MarnetteD | Talk 02:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. MarnetteD (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Will some one please explain how my blending in of the country of origin - which is the only thing that the IP wanted to add in - with the original lede is edit warring. It is actually the attempt to reach consensus that wikipedia strives for. Edit warring is 4 reversions in 24 hours and that did not occur in this instance. One last point needs to be made (and possibly ignored) There is a flaw with the filing of the report in that it was filed after the edit warring - such as it was - had stopped. The last edit made incorporated what the IP wanted with what the article had been and removed the WP:OVERLINK violation that the IP did not seem to understand. Then the IP filed the report. It would be nice if anyone had looked at that fact. MarnetteD - Talk 03:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Accept reason: User has agreed to a 0RR restriction as discussed below. Swarm X 06:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC) I've consolidated your unblock requests to make this simpler. First, understand that per WP:3RR, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring" Secondly, being "right" is not an exemption for edit warring. You were edit warring and you were blocked legitimately. That said, given that your last edit was a perfectly reasonable attempt to accommodate the IP, you haven't been blocked in nearly two years, and the amount of good work you've done here over the long term, I'm willing to AGF and reduce the block to time served, with the assumption that as an established editor, you can be trusted not to edit war in the future. My one condition that you agree to a voluntary 0RR restriction for the remainder of the 24 hours (until 01:01, September 13). Is this something you're willing to adhere to? Swarm X 04:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC) I have been away from my computer so you may not be online to see my response but I agree to your terms with a couple questions so that I don't violate those terms. By 0RR do you mean that I have to ignore any vandalism that appears on my watchlist? If so will I be allowed to make other editors aware of it? Also is the 01:01 GMT or my time US Mountain Time Zone (which is minus 7 not accounting for it being daylight savingsher) Of course you may be offline now and I am headed to meet the sandman in 10 minutes or so. Thanks for your time and I will go with whatever you decide. MarnetteD | Talk 06:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC) The exemptions are the same as for 3RR—you're allowed to revert obvious vandalism. In borderline cases, you're allowed to and should by all means alert someone else to it, rather than risk violating the restriction. And it will expire 1:10 GMT. If you have any other questions or are unclear on anything, feel free to let me know. Swarm X 06:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC) I checked back one last time after brushing my teeth. Thanks for all your answers. Again I agree to the terms. One last question regarding that 01:01 - To me that means Sept 13th at 1:01 am GMT which (if I'm doin the math right) is Sept 12 7:01 pm Mountain Time (again daylight savings meaning subtract 6 instead of 7) but that can't be right as that moment on the clock has already past. Just let me know the time of the restrictions but, again, I agree to them to allow the block to be lifted. Thanks once again. MarnetteD | Talk 06:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Hi, at Preferences → Date and time I have my time zone set to "Use wiki default (UTC)". When I look at the block log, it shows that the block was imposed at 01:01, 13 September 2012 UTC "with an expiry time of 24 hours", so since you "have agreed to a 0RR restriction for the remainder of the 24 hour period", the 0RR expires at 01:01, 14 September 2012 UTC. If the description at Mountain Daylight Time is correct, these work out as: block imposed 7:01 pm September 12, 2012 MDT; 0RR expires 7:01 pm September 13, 2012 MDT. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks so much R. I got to thinking about it while swimming this morning and I sorta thought that was the situation. I am glad that you confirmed things. Your acumen as ever is much appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC) I just wanted to respond to this comment in the last unblock request: "Will some one please explain how my blending in of the country of origin ... with the original lede is edit warring." Edit warring is edit warring, no matter what. I don't care if it's over invisible whitespace. It's disruptive. The block was placed solely on this ground (behavioral) and in no way indicates which version of the article is correct. While your last edit was an attempt at compromise (a good thing) it was still a partial revert of the other editor. Things should have moved from the article to the talk page long before that point. --Chris (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC) No it wasn't. Also since blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive one has to ask what did you prevent. The edits to the article in question were long over and a compromise had been reach so you didn't protect it. As pointed out the Mancunian edits from several IPs so you didn't prevent them from editing other articles. The only thing you did was punish me for something that - had the report been filed at AIV - would have been considered stale. Don't get me wrong, I think that you acted as so many do at 3rr/EW. I just wish that we would have the courage to state at "edit warring" that blocks there are as likely to be punitive as anything else. My own pet peeve I guess. Regards. MarnetteD | Talk 22:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Followup. You do realize that you stated that you blocked me for doing "a good thing". A wonderful example of how wonderfully absurd editing here can be. MarnetteD | Talk 00:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC) The block came three hours after your last edit, and the war had gone on for nearly a day before that. There was no indication that either of you were going to stop reverting one another. I assure you that the block was not meant to punish, but only to end the back-and-forth reversions that had been going on all day. I did take into account your previous two 3RR blocks and considered blocking for longer, but since you are such an active and constructive editor I figured that a 24 hour block would be all that was necessary to get your attention -- I would not have come to that conclusion had I intended the block to be punitive. (You are welcome to request the opinion of uninvolved administrators regarding this block. I know my judgement is not always perfect and I have no problem with the community reviewing my actions.) --Chris (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Marnette: I've been where you've been. You've pointed out the inequity of the block of a long-term productive user versus a fly-by-night IP who will show up as another IP whenever he wants to: such an imbalance is an artifact of the WMF's unwillingness to understand the necessity to restrict IP editing and require registration to edit. Unfortunately, there's not much you can do about that, so we're stuck with the current situation. You've been unfortunate enough to cross paths with a couple of admins who have no understanding of the value of a productive editor versus that of a disruptive IP.

In any case, my advice is to let it pass. You know you're in the right, and others know it as well, so let the block be a little bit of a vacation for you: I'm sure you can use a respite from Wikipedia (I certainly could!), so just let it pass. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note BMK. It has given me time to catch up on my Boardwalk Empire season 2 DVDs and then I was watching the Met performance of Die Walküre on PBS. Sadly, they still did not sing "Kill the Wabbit" as was so properly done in What's Opera, Doc? but I live in hope that someone will warble out those words one day. :-D Thanks again for taking the time to post here. It is much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 06:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)