User talk:MarkWood

Welcome!

Hello, MarkWood, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Brisvegas 07:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation @ the John Bowlby article

Hi there! I have taken the mediation case listed here. I have replied on the article's talk page, so if you could reply there with your perspective on this issue that would be great! Hopefully we can work things out. Cheers, Brisvegas 07:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my talk page

Please do not leave baseless warnings on my talk page or threaten to leave them. Pointing out a conflict interest is not uncivil and making a contested revert once is just fine. shotwell 19:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The warning is founded in Wikipedia policies and practices. Specifically, I direct your attention to the Assume good faith and Civil pages. MarkWood 17:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've all stopped using the non-existant templates. If you want to link to the wikipedia guidelines on good faith or civility, try [[WP:FAITH]] or [[WP:CIVIL]]. I'm only telling you this because you're all making the same exact error. While we're at it, there is nothing wrong with pointing out a conflict of interests. shotwell 22:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation over Advocates for Children in Therapy

You have been listed as an involved party in Advocates for Children in Therapy, and I have accepted the case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy. If you can please take a look at the case and let us hear your side, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. shotwell 19:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

Arbitration

I have filed an arbitration request concerning Attachment Therapy and listed you as an involved party. You can provide a statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Attachment_Therapy. shotwell 11:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Your sockpuppets have been blocked indefinitely. Please stick to this account from now on. Picaroon (Talk) 03:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, this user turned out to be a sockpuppet of DPeterson. Picaroon (t) 18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence, please?

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).

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

Request reason:

do not have my own connection and use several area public connections, such as my local public library and cafes, etc. Can I see the evidence of my being a "sockpuppet," please?

Decline reason:

This appears to be what you are asking for. Since this is an ongoing arbitration case, I doubt very much that any admin would be willing to unblock this account before the arbcom have ruled on this issue. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.