Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:48, 2 May 2010

Template:Archive box collapsible

Nguyen

I want to delete those incorrect infomation from the Nguyen article.

This surname is not originally Chinese. So, there is no point to put some Chinese legends here. Plus, there is no way to prove the correctness of some unknown legends. People might have some misunderstandings that 40% Vietnamese are Chinese which is not true. Nguyen is a Vietnamese surname, NO Chinese.

This article is about Nguyen, a Vietnamese surname. So, there is no point to put some notable Ruan people here. List the notable Ruan people in a Ruan article, please. Notable Ruan people has nothing to do with Nguyen article. Ducdung (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC+8)

No thanks, really.

I fail to see a similar post at User_talk:FellGleaming, so why would I? Because I'm right, but you are on his side? Or because his insults are to easily spotted to count? Lars T. (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen him insult anybody like you have there, in fact i have not seen any posts were he insults anyone, do you refuse to remove your attack? mark nutley (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Don't be a prat", to use his words. Lars T. (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a diff? And will you remove your PA? mark nutley (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Intellectual dishonesty (or simple disability to use the find function of a browser) duly noted. Lars T. (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Get real, have you seen how many edits Fell has made over the last few days? You are the one who saw the remark, you must have a vague idea were it is? mark nutley (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Control-F or Command-F — Don't be a prat. Lars T. (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC

I've nowiki'd your RFC, for the same reasons as before: you can't write these things neutrally. Experience suggests that you won't be able to see this even when it is pointed out to you, so I suggest you find someone on "your side" (not that there are sides, of course) to help you reword it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, look at how I wrote this RfC. It probably isn't perfect, but I strove to take no sides in the RfC heading itself. I started off with the basic question, explained the background and scope of the disagreement, and what was on the table to resolve the issue. Cla68 (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying one line would suffice? To do that then how am i to present the refs showing this is a factual account and not fringe? Look, as it stands the pov tag will not be allowed to be removed until certain editors have forced their POV into the article, thats not on. mark nutley (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

One line to state the core issue, then a short paragraph under that in the "Discussion" section which explains in greater detail, without taking a side, that includes all the links and diffs needed to help unfamiliar editors make a decision. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your revert of my nowiki'ing was a mistake; it is a shame that Cla won't tell you so. But I came here to tell you not to comment in the section marked Comments from uninvolved users unless you want to discredit your RFC yet further William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No it was not, your mistake was yet again interrupting this process, If a question is asked of the rfc then of course i have to comment in that section. You have come here to tell me nothing as you have already destroyed the process again mark nutley (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You've destroyed your RFC, not me; just as you did the last one. You should not have moved my comment from the top section - plenty of other RFC's have this. It appears that you cannot cope if the top section is not framed exclusively as you want it, and your obvious bias not pointed out. Really, you should take advice on this, and listen to it, *before* you file these things. And your removal of my comment is in rather stark contrast to *your* commenting in a section specifically marked as for uninvolved users William M. Connolley (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You are in error, your comment should have gone into the area for uninvolved editors, whic his were i moved it to. My comments were in direct response to questions about the rfc, now do go away there`s a good lad mark nutley (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Just something to note for future RFC's. This line "There are several refs to back the claim that this is a full and factual account of the history of the hockey stick." alone would go against NPOV. It's setting the stage for a particular viewpoint - "full and factual". Essentially, it's asking "Am I right, or am I right?". That's going to put people on the defensive that might disagree with you - you've called them wrong right from the start after all.

I agree with you that, when a question is asked by an uninvolved editor, you probably should respond if it's process, not view related. If an editor is espressing their view, I'm not sure it's helpful for you to respond to their points, but expect nobody else to respond to your point. That's not really fair. Respond to process questions ("Should have also asked if the POV tag is correct"), but if it's their view, I'd stay in the involved section. If you jump all over any outside editor that expresses a view counter to yours, what does that say to a future uninvolved editor? Ravensfire (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, it may however prove pointless as some editors seem to want to merge the book article in with two other articles, i am unsure on how to deal with this. The book and this article are more than notable to have their own articles, so if his blog is not i don`t see how all three should be merged into one, it will trivialize and minimize both the book and Montford mark nutley (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything on the talk pages for Montford or the book about a merge. It seems he's quoted at least occasionally by various media, which is a plus. If you can find something about him being a commentator for print/televised media, that would strengthen the case. I don't think the blog is notable enough for a seperate article, but I would create a section on his article for the blog, and move related parts of the article there.

I'd also suggest a slight reorg of the article. Have three sections under climate change advocacy - book, media, blog- in that order. He's most notable for the book, so lead with that. The other two are interchangeble. You've got some stuff in Personal related to the book and the blog - move 'em out of there.

For the rest - it's a jungle out there. You've made some mistakes, and there are people on both sides who will jump all over any small mistake. Rather than be defensive, see if there's some validity to the mistake and if so, correct it and thank the person. You're both here to create something, right? So if they spot a mistake of yours, aren't they doing you a favor by making sure the material you put out is the best possible? If you think they're wrong, explain why. (And yes, both sides can use the same advice) The area is such a cesspool that I have no doubt that many editors won't touch it. I'm one of them. The recent approach of civil disagreement/civil POV by several editors will, ultimately, be successful if they can get under the skin of the other side. On top of that, people will take your words with greater weight when you are the noble editor. Ravensfire (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes look pretty good. I'm going make some minor tweaks/MOS changes, but not too bad. Ravensfire (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please refactor...

This is certainly not an OK comment. I don't know such a thing, in fact i disagree vehemently (and have since before you even created the articles - see my comments on it at ATren's talk). You are not only assuming bad faith - you are accusing people of it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I am most certainly not assuming bad faith. If the book was not notable then it would have gone to afd. If Montford was not notable he would already be gone under the new blp rules. That is what i meant when i said you know it. If they were not notable enough for there own articles the ywould already have been deleted. It is you who are assuming bad faith here, not i mark nutley (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

By stating that our position is "Bollocks and you know it" - you are accusing of us bad faith. I (as i said above) certainly don't "know it". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Judith Curry

Can I recommend that you read my last post at the talk page one more time? Especially the last sentence. I actually agreed with you that the fact that she engages with skeptics is notable :) Thepm (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why the removal of her posts and links on sceptic blogs? As the article now stands it looks like she wagged her finger over at real climate and that`s about it. I`m not happy with the wholesale removal of reliably sourced material which is a notable moment in her life mark nutley (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I didn't remove it, but I can understand why WMC did. It makes the same point over and over. Add a sentence noting that she's posted at WUWT or that she's engaged with skeptics or something like that. I think that's all the addition we need on that.

I'll add that you should also try to add some stuff unrelated to climategate. She's been in academia for 20 years and her article sounds like the only thing she's ever done is slag off at the climategate crew. That's what WMC seems to be so cranky about. Thepm (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ask the average guy who she is, they will not know her from her academic career, the ywill know her for her responses to climatgate and her willingness to talk to sceptics. If wmc felt it was unbalanced he should have added to the article, not gut it. mark nutley (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion should be on the article talk page, not here, if you want others to contribute or read. But if you're just talking amongst yourselves, fine William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We're just chatting. MN was about to serve tea and biscuits. Want some? Thepm (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

MN - please *read* the tags you use. The one you used says "The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page". There is no discussion from you on the talk page justifying that tag. Please add some, instead of wasting your time whingeing about you getting the wrong tag William M. Connolley (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Given you have replied in the section were this is being discussed what are you waffling on about? mark nutley (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You've got not-very-long to redact that William M. Connolley (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Done as requested mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Far too close to an WP:NPA violation for someone on civility parole. Guettarda (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Tell me something Guettarda, am i the only one here on a civility parole? Why are you not mentioning these to WMC? mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"But he did it too" is not a defence. Guettarda (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify "are you incapable" is a direct comment on the person's intellectual ability and thus a comment on the person. The comments you linked to a comments about your editing behaviour. The latter is acceptable, the former is a violation of our policy on personal attacks. To violate that policy while under civility parole is a serious problem. Guettarda (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish, it is a straight question to someone who is studiously avoiding a question put to them, it is not a comment on a persons intellect at all, and i am unsure how you could even reach such a conclusion mark nutley (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Incapable of giving an answer"? That sounds to me like a comment on their cognitive abilities. Guettarda (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No saying "you are incapable" would be a comment on their cognitive abilities "Are you incapable" is a question mark nutley (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No - "are you incapable" is a rhetorical question, a comment phrased as a question, along the lines of "are you stupid?". "Are you able to answer a question" would still be a personal attack though, since the only way the answer could be "no" would be if there was serious mental impairment. It's not like asking "can you place a ball with a cricket bat" or "can you place the red ball in the corner pocket", since these are specific skills and there's no shame in answering "no". If you ask "can you answer a question?" you only expect "no" if the person is seriously impaired. So asking the question is the same as asking "are you cognitively or intellectually impaired". And note, you phrased it as a rhetorical question - in other words, you weren't asking, you were accusing. Guettarda (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a straight question "Are you able to answer a question" why yes, yes i can. "Are you able to answer a question" well no, i don`t actually have an answer. There you go, how hard is that question to answer, it`s not is it. Now be a good lad and do bugger off mark nutley (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about civility, but "bugger off" is problematic. Much like I said with respect to calling people "fucking retards" being ok where I work, there are many areas where suggesting people have anal sex is considered the ultimate of offenses. It's probably in your best interest not do do that again. Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please try to focus. To begin with "are you able to answer a question" is not the same as "are you able to answer question". Regardless, that was a simplification on my part to address a particular part of your comment. "Are you incapable of answering a question" cannot be answered with "yes, I don't have an answer". It cannot be answered because it's a rhetorical question. And either you're calling someone mentally incompetent, or you're calling them dishonest. Both of these are personal attacks. Neither is acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, lets make this simple, here is what i wrote Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above? Now lets see if i can answer it.

• "Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above?" Of course i am, here it is
• "Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above?" No, i am not.

Yes, i can see how that is a rhetorical question which can`t be answered all right mark nutley (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not commenting on the rest of them, but is not even remotely a personal attack - in fact, it's just plain really good advice. Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Implying i am unable to write an RFC without aid is insulting mark nutley (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

MN: you've had not one but *two* RFC's aborted for non-neutrality (and it wasn't just me that thought that - even LHVU thought so too. In fact *everyone* except you thought so). So you have a proven track record of writing non-neutral RFC's, *and* being unable to see that they aren't neutral. So you need someone to check the next one before you trip up again. Stating (not implying) that you are unable to do this is merely to state the obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Without comment on the facts regarding your inability to write a neutral RFC, best practices for writing an RFC are either to reach a consensus on what exactly to ask, to write the RFC for the enemy, or at the very least, to have a neutral party help you write the rfc. It's just good advice. Take it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case, WMC is right about the RFC. He didn't say you are incapable - those are your words - but it's a strong suggestion to ask someone else to review the RFC before you post it. That's actually just good advice, and you got the same from Hipocrite. Find someone that would argue the opposite side from you and work with them to get a neutral RFC statement. You've had two shot down for not conforming to the generally accepted standards of WP. That suggests that what you consider neutral and what the WP community considers neutral aren't the same. Think about that. Ravensfire (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No no no

When will you learn? Sigh. Now get someone to read the thing and tell you what is wrong with it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you think is wrong with it? It is a straight question asked in the rfc mark nutley (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Why bother answer? I've told you the obvious before and you've ignored me until one of "your side" has told you the same thing. Go ask one of them, or someone neutral, or anyone really except yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who has stopped it, either tell me what you think is wrong so i can fix it or i`ll just revert you mark nutley (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just added your WP:RFC request. I strongly suggest that William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) do not intervene like this on the way we work on Misplaced Pages. This is borderline disturbance of the project. Nsaa (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, do you think it is neutral enough the way it is written? Is there something i should change? mark nutley (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Free service announcement: The grammar is horrible. And you might want to consider what "neutral" means. Here is a hint: Don't put your opinion anywhere in it, not even when you think it's fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Stephan, i`ll move my opinion down mark nutley (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Better. But still, is that the question you want answered? Compare "Should I be allowed to pour a litre of ice water into my bed before I go to sleep?" Assume you get a yes on that one - what will you do? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sleep in a wet bed. This i think is a question which has to be sorted, you guys keep removing the word climategate from everywere, it`s ridiculous. The world laughs and still it continues. There is no reason to not use climategate in article sections or text. for gods sake mate, it`s what the entire world calls it mark nutley (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not asking if Climategate should be used. And you have a very myopic view of "the entire world". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Made more clear per your suggestion. Stephan, outside of wikipedia what is it called? mark nutley (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They've forgotten what Jimbo so clearly stated at his user talk page "I think there's a pretty strong case to be made for "Climategate" as the name for the article, as it is clearly the most common name in the press for this. I think it fairly obvious why people don't want it called that - but that call is not up to Misplaced Pages. We must call it what it is called, and what it is called, is climategate. (This is not a decree, but my point is that it is pretty obvious that - contrary to the wild claims of coverup and so on - we do have a well-sourced article that is comprehensive and informative and fair... but with a pretty silly title that no one uses. The scandal here is clearly not the "hacking incident" - about which virtually nothing is known. The scandal is the content of the emails, which has proven to be deeply embarrassing (whether fairly or unfairly) to certain people.) The result of the silly title is that there is traction (unfairly) for claims that Misplaced Pages is suppressing something.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)" (oh he is just an ordinary user yeah). And we have the hole world reporting as this name Climategate usage in the first three/four months and in a longer and longer list of books . Nsaa (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A compromise was reached about the article title that required concessions by both "sides". You're relitigating a closed issue. Why not just accept that and move on to something more productive? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Chris, please read the RFC, it is for the use of climategate in section titles or text. Not as an article title mark nutley (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read the RfC. Same principle applies. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you`re beyond hope, bye mark nutley (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't be impatient

I've restored the tags William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

six days is enough, consensus is for no merge, and keep the hell of my talk page mark nutley (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's normally best to ask an uninvolved admin to close the merge. See Help:Merging. Guettarda (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Mark, when you add multiple items with multiple references, please adding the material in as separate edits. user:Guettarda notes "it's within accepted practice to undo the entire edit that adds a serious BLP violation". Thus while some of your added material may have been acceptable, some (arguably) was not, and adding it as a single edit means that if anyone can find plausible fault with any part, the entire edit can be reverted. --SPhilbrickT 19:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There was no BLP violation. The words were Dr Currys, from her open letter. The stuff wmc removed was in the article when i moved it to mainspace. I must have forgotten to remove the blog link when i moved it. The exact same words can be found New york Times there. mark nutley (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You missed the point.--SPhilbrickT 19:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No i did not, i know what you meant. But as it was a whole article i moved into mainspace then there was no way to add stuff one edit at a time, wmc removed an entire section based on one bad ref. That`s the point mark nutley (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

And when i do add stuff a bit at a time, the whole lot gets removed anyway. I mean whats the point of trying to improve an article when the people trying to get it deleted remove all the material form it? mark nutley (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent)(ec) That's not quite true. 17:08, 24 April 2010 is the move, but you add a new blog source 15:12, 25 April 2010, after the move, and then, after the whole section had been removed for "actually I'm right - this really is so grossly one-sided as to be a BLP vio. Removing the whole section until it can be fixed," instead of carefully evaluating the section to determine that the sourcing was impecable, you merely reverted the whole section back in - including not only the blogs you incldued, but also the deleted blog comment that Tilman put in. Hipocrite (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That is from her open letter, what the hell is wrong with that?, and i did`nt revert tillman, i reverted wmc. Look, i removed a blog from an article as not reliable. WMC reverted me saying it was a Convenience link to the material being cited. I have just done what he did and i`m in the shit for it. No big surprise really is it mark nutley (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So, to be clear, your argument is "he did it, so why can't I?" The reason is that it's an encyclopedia, so the goal is to make an encyclopedia. If he was wrong when he did it, then he was wrong, but you can't fix his wrong by doing wrong yourself. You were obviously wrong in inserting references to a random blog by someguy (which you continue to do - I thought people have explained to you about a billion times to stop using blogs as sources) and a deleted blog comment that may or may not have been from Dr. Curry. Hipocrite (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I have already said i was wrong, and as it is also to be found in the new york times it is obvious there was no "Putting words into Dr Currys mouth" as was said on the RFE page. Funny one that, wmc gets pulled up again, it`s me how gets sanctioned. Fuck it, it`s all bollocks. mark nutley (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I owe you an apology. You never reinserted the blog comments. I apologize. However, the quotes from Dr. Curry that you attribute to the NYT were not accurate. You quote Dr. Curry as saying "sloppiness." But she never said that. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, you didn't write that either, so I owe you a second apology. While I don't think you conveyed the circiling the wagons quote appropriately, that's a matter for editing, not evidence of bad-acts. It's a shame that you cited a blog for something you should have cited the NYT for. For future refrence, best practice would be to stop linking to blogs entirely. Hipocrite (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for pursuing this, but I'm working on a proposal for changes to 3RR exceptions, and this incident will be central. I'd like to make sure I understand exactly what happened. In this edit, you added several sentences and several references. I'm suggesting that if you had added that material as three edits, then anyone choosing to revert the addition has to assert a BLP violation for every edit - but by adding it as a single edit, they only had to assert a single BLP violation in any part of the edit. I'm not interested in debating now whether any sentence or ref has BLP issues, I'm trying to understand your statement that you couldn't add it as multiple edits. I don't see why. I do understand it was probably easier to copy and paste as one edit, but you said "there was no way to add stuff one edit at a time" and I'm trying to make sense of that statement.--SPhilbrickT 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No problems, look here This is were i added a blog posting of her open letter. This is wmc`s mass removal of material. He could have reverted the bad source, he instead removed everything. Looks like i did actually do what you mention above. But the whole lot was removed on the basis of the last edit i made mark nutley (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Arguably, he should have removed only the questionable material, but by adding the material in as a single edit, coupled with the note about acceptable practice, you made it easy for him to remove it all. --SPhilbrickT 20:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually most of what he removed (sentences comprising 161 of 213 words) was deeply problematic. Apart from the comment sourced to a blog, there was a case where a quote, made in reference to one thing (trust of scientists by the public) was applied to something different (data sharing and openness in the IPCC process). And that wasn't the only problematic part. Guettarda (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's an essay explaining the point I'm trying to make, note especially the section Make small edits

Word to the wise

While I see nothing wrong with this edit, you never know how someone might interpret it. It's just not worth giving people ammunition against you. Guettarda (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Mark, I'd stay away from that page completely. ATren (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You just violated your 1RR restriction...

With this, since your previous edits (this) was a partial revert back to Nsaa's version which was reverted here - specifically the paragraphs starting with "A post on the blog led to the ...." and " Andrew Orlowski, writing for The Register after .....".

That is not acceptable. As for the BLP part - you can refer to my talk-page where we have a conversation about that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I actually added new material, There was no reverting done on my part in those edits. Nor is there a blp issue. mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, i just went to self revert but what i added is already gone. Problem solved mark nutley (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, if I were you I would turn off the computer and do something else (watch TV, go for a jog, drink an adult drink, play a video game). Don't come back to Misplaced Pages until tomorrow. Please, I speak from experience and from watching many, many, other situations like this. Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am going offline now. Thanks. mark nutley (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

re Atmoz probation enforcement request

Please would you consider putting the three diffs, and any subsequent ones, in chronological order. Currently, the first diff is an addition to the edit exampled by the third diff, and the second diff happened before (or after, need to check) the other two. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You're on 3 reverts on Bishop Hill (blog) right now. Not impressive for someone ostensibly on a 1RR limit... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you figure that? I added a source which you removed. I reverted you. Were do you get 3r from? mark nutley (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

18:25, 29 April 2010 revert, 19:40, 28 April 2010 revert. Chris is incorrect about the middle diff - though I suggest for about the billionth time that you stop inserting blog-sourced content into articles. Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you know as well as i do that delingpoles telegraph blog meets wp:rs on the revert thing, looks like i was out an hour. What time does WP run on? your post says 18.48 but mt clock says 19.49 mark nutley (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is 3RR.(,,), even assuming that you miscounted the time (WP:GAMING), you broke your 1RR again today....

The Delingpole stuff is a partial revert of a section on Delingpole from before ( - Mark's own version from the 27th.). Mark, please ask someone you trust to help you understand what a revert is, the next time that you break your revert sanction i doubt if people are going to overlook it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is on UTC. While something may skim by RS, using opinion blogs as sources for stuff is acceptable, but not always good or useful. Our best articles use partisan opinion blogs sparingly, to say the least. Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

@Kim, i don`t think i used that delingpole ref before please look here the two delingpole refs are not the ones i just used in the article. @Hipocrite, i know such op-eds need to be used with attribution whic his what i did. As for the time thing, i`ll have to get into the habit of looking at wp times, and not my clock mark nutley (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is from the version on the 27th:

.... And "Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill. It seems the AGW establishment has launched an urgent damage limitation exercise in order to whitewash the Climategate scandal in time for Copenhagen."

And this is from the "new" insertion:

....wrote "Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill. It seems the AGW establishment has launched an urgent damage limitation exercise in order to whitewash the Climategate scandal in time for Copenhagen."

A rather clear partial revert. And you are the one responsible for checking. (and btw. the reference is exactly the same) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, Kim is correct that you are, in fact, on 3rr - I was not aware of , which includes the "Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill..." quote, making all 3 of the reverts, in fact, reverts. Probably best to stop reverting entirely, and instead reach consensus on talk pages - try 0rr for a bit. Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like i`ll have to, it`s impossible to keep up with all the changes when everything keeps getting removed :(. mark nutley (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, trust me... walk away from this one entirely, for a while. Talk on the talk page about this, and leave the editing of the article alone for a day or three. See my talk, you're in serious risk of being hauled up for sanctions again, and it will go hard for you. Please step away. And if you are unclear on what reversion is (which is what KDP is suggesting), ask someone to explain it better. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I am Lar, my last edit comment was "Looks like i`m on 0rr" I meant that. And if you look at the article talk page in question you will see i have opened a new section to discuss just this thing mark nutley (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. As a note, I do think you may benefit from a closer study of the revert policy, knowing it cold will help you stay out of trouble. I'd be happy to chat with you about it sometime if you use any sort of messaging... I primarily use gmail and IRC. ++Lar: t/c 02:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks lar, my gmail is linked to my profile here. Shoot me a message so i have your addie. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mark

I hope all is going well in your neck of the woods. I would've been perfectly happy to ignore WMC, but his incredibly rude behavior demanded some sort of response since administrative action is clearly not allowed in his case. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ya all is fine mate, well apart from two RFE`s currently against me, and another one against wmc but were i am to be sanctioned yet again :-) funny old world ain`t it mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by the situation. Email me if you ever want any advice/an ear. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre

Why are you restoring vandalism of your comments ? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How is fixing a typo vandalism? mark nutley (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Left a message for you here. You may want to look a bit more carefully at what I reverted. Thepm (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 24 hours

free again

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Per the discussion at the Probation enforcement request page. I understand you wish to appeal to be allowed to work on drafts in userspace, and will note that in the closing statement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for noting that i would like to work in my user space. Might i please be unblocked to continue work on my wips, i will not edit any articles or talkpahes on mainspace for the duration of the 24hr block. I have actually managed to get an article into mainspace today and would like to work on her other book and her BLP. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC) I'll note a protest an unblock for works in progress, as the last time this was granted, Mark was unable to grasp the limits of this (creating new articles, editing articles etc). If such an unblock is granted it should be with a specific note that there will be consequences (stated) for breaking these. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Kim, you know full well that was a misunderstanding based on the fact the block before was that i was unblocked but not allowed to edit articles in the probation area. So when i was unblocked the time you are complaining about i assumed it was under the same terms. In fact 2/0 said no harm done as i had not edited articles within the probation area. I know if i am unblocked it will be only to work on my article wips mark nutley (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Mark, i'm sorry to say that you make mistakes to often (conditional unblock => mistake, 1RR => mistake, ...). You jump when you should pussy-foot. My hope is that you will understand that jumping may have consequences - and that this will help you think before acting. As said, if such an unblock is granted with a specific note as to consequences, then i'm not specifically against it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC) WEll how about if i break the unblock by posting in mainspace the block is extended to 48 hrs? Would that suit? mark nutley (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC) (e/c)It will have to be way more specific than that. Last time you also broke parole within hours by posting comments on other user-pages. (and "extented to" is not acceptable, since that means that if you feel the need it will just "move" your 24 hours a bit forward - "extended by" is more acceptable). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry Kim, that is what i meant, if i break the unblock then a 48 hours block will be enacted from when an admin enacts said block mark nutley (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC) I will note on the Probation request talkpage that you are requesting unblock to work in userspace only, and KDP's protest, since I have already subsequently edited the Probation page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Link to relevant unblocking discussion. Link to subsequent discussion after terms were violated. Link to block log. I meant no harm done in the sense that you were not edit warring or any such nonsense, and blocks are preventative rather than punitive - it was by no means okay, but I felt at the time that the best solution would be to note the misunderstanding and move on with building an encyclopedia. No opinion on the current situation, as I have not been following it (your talkpage is still on my watchlist and the heading caught my eye, in case you were wondering). - 2/0 (cont.) 22:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

done ScottyBerg (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

done ScottyBerg (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing restriction per WP:GS/CC/RE

"Marknutley is prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions such as articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media, to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing. He is also prohibited from reverting the removal of sources that he added to an article without first gathering talk page consensus. Marknutley is encouraged to find a mentor who can assist in checking the reliability of sources and with more properly educating him on the reliable sources policy." NW (Talk) 20:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Cla68 has agreed to be such a mentor, if you wish. NW (Talk) 20:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Delingpole, James (November 27, 2009). "Climategate: the whitewash begins". The Telegraph. Retrieved 20 April 2010.
2. Delingpole, James (November 27th, 2009). "Climategate: the whitewash begins". The Telegraph. Retrieved 29 April 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)