User talk:Markdabner

Please do not wrongly accuse editors of Vandalism

Please do not wrongly accuse editors of Vandalism when it's a content dispute. You don't accuse editors of vandalism to try to get them to stop. You take try a verbal dialog that doesn't attack the other editor or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I have started a report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents has this needs to stop and cannot go on further.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of people who have run across Australia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 18:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 18:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have run across Australia

It seems that you have a Conflict of Interest with Deborah De Williams, so you should be sure to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before you continue editing articles closely related to her. You should also make it very clear you have one. This can be done in your User Page or at the top of your talk page and when your are discussing things about her in discussion pages. This isn't required but is generally seen as a good thing as it shows you care about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Secondly, I have started a discussion on the talk of 'List of people who have run across Australia' that you are free to chime in on. I highly recommend you don't edit the article until the discussion is over.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Important information regarding wikipedia

The content in dispute is about the addition of Sarah Mycroft and not De Williams. For sources about Mycroft not running, they must be published sources. Wikipedia does not include original research (see Wikipedia:Original Research). That means research that you have a part in or asking someone for their research. They must be published a well recognized journal, newspaper (online or print), etc. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, we care about verifiability meaning sources not original research. I will point out that, from my research the verifiable sources tend to say she ran. It's important that I stress from my research. That's why wikipedia requires Wikipedia:Consensus and a big part of that is discussion and ever page has a discussion/talk page. I may have easily missed something. If you have verifiable sources great! Add it to the discussion on List of people who have run across Australia. That's what it's for.

About your request for editing the article, I have no power to stop you to do that. It was a recommendation because usually when an edit war starts and needs to be put stop like this, it ends badly if the same editors that were a part of it start editing the article with the same disputed content. The fact you are asking worries me because you aren't understanding what wikipedia is about. It's about working together with editors to try to improve articles. You seem to be bypassing that important part. I highly reccomend you join the conversation of the talk page of List of people who have run across Australia.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell

I can tell you have no interest in following wikipedia's guildlines and policies. In your last edit you have violated two policies. 1) I gave you a detailed explanation on in importance of Verifiability. You have restored unverified claimed and in your summary said it was incorrectly removed when I gave you a very detailed explanation. 2) Do not make edits minor anymore. You are obviously marking edits minor incorrect. Both these things will get you blocked. To make matters worse you haven't said a word in the discussion I started. I have lost all patience with you. Next time you violate Wikipedia policy, I will report you to be blocked.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) A minor edit is a spelling/grammar mistake or reverting vandalism. Since you have falsely excused editors of vandalism you shouldn't use that box. 2) I have asked you multiple times to go to the discussion I started, you have yet do that. 3) You knew that the Sarah Mycroft issue involved her being the first to run, yet you continue to add it back even after my many attempts to try to get you to discuss it. This will only end with a consensus on the talk page. 4) I don't know what you think a discussion is but this is not a discussion about the content. This is my many attempts to try to get you to discuss. This is how discussions are conducted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles E. Abramson (2nd nomination). None of that has transpired thus far. 5) Lastly, I also said I highly recommend you don't edit put back the information, but you chose to ignore that part. On Wikipedia you are free to do what you please, that why I said no one is stopping you. However, you must suffer the consequences if you continually violate it's policy and that's why I said I highly recommmend you don't. Just like you are free to do as you wish, the community is free to decide if they shall block or content ban you.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last reply to you. You continue to say the same things over and over. I have told a million times, wikipedia doesn't care about your original research. Your emails don't mean anything here. Where is the sources for the so called community consensus? By sources, I mean newspaper articles, etc. Those are source. This is the third time I'm telling you your emails don't matter. You have yet to add them to the discussion when I have asked you to a million times. It's painfully clear you are ignoring me. I am done explaining things further with you. You either go to the talk page and civilly discuss it or continue your path and get blocked or topic banned. I no longer care. You refuse to listen to what I say then I am no longer helping you learn about the proper way to conduct yourself to avoid getting blocked. The fact that you continue to say the same thing over and over when I have clearly explained it to you is beyond irritating.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence good enough? I have said for now the forth time newspaper articles, magazines, online articles are valid sources. I also gave you this to read Wikipedia:Original_Research, which you haven't. You have chosen to ignore it and chosen again to. Seriously do you just ignore my posts and just try to play the victim.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again, full circle. I'm done here. Please don't contact me. Seriously how hard is to understand that you need verifiable sources. This is the 5th. You are the first person to not get. I think you do get it, but choose to ignore it.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]