Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:18, 5 July 2010

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)

The Gore Effect

...which is about gore telling everyone there gonna die if we don`t stop this global warming...

Really.not.helpful Mark. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just a little humour, to try and lighten the atmosphere over there :) mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark...for your consideration. While I haven't yet grasped the rationale for your recent undiscussed article edit(edit summary: "(remove duplicate stuff)", whether it is defensible of not is less important than the propriety of "drive-by" editing given the current instability of the article. Assuming your edit to be "substantive", wouldn't it be better (at least in the short term) to discuss it (if only briefly) in "talk" before editing the article itself? Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur

I happened to stumble upon Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur and noticed your name in the edit history. I was thinking that it might be a good idea for you to take a break from the climate change articles and work on something else. Perhaps you might want to help me improve the MacArthur dismissal article, maybe we can even try to get it to good article status. What do you think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea truth be told, my name is in that particular article as i happened upon it on RC Patrol and reviewed it :), I`ll help out on it happily mark nutley (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. :) There's currently a {Cleanup} tag on the article. I just posted a question on the article talk page to find out if there's anything left that needs to be cleaned up. While I wait for feedback, I'll read through the article to see if I can spot anything else that might need to be fixed. Have you gone through a WP:GA review before? I haven't. But one of my articles is about to go through the process, so I'll have a better idea of how WP:GA works, hopefully soon. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have tried with The Hockey Stick Illusion but you can guess what happened there :) mark nutley (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hide the Decline music video

Do you remember if we ever had an article on the Hide the Decline music video? If so, was the article deleted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don`t think we did, but did`nt Mann try to sue those guys for that video? mark nutley (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If he didn't, Tommy James should. Hide the decline briefly pointed to the music video (e.g. , ), although currently it is of course a redirect to Climatic Research Unit unfortunate event involving computers and unapproved access to accumulated electronic correspondence, or whatever the article is currently titled. :P MastCell  21:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If I can find enough sources to establish notability, I'll look into creating an article on it. For now, I've created a section on my talk page with a list of potential sources for such an article. If you (or anyone reading this) come across any more sources, please add them to this list. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I could put in my usual plea about whether such an article would be a good use of effort, but what the heck. I see amongst your sources that The Guardian ranked it the #6 viral video in November 2009. Should we work on articles for the 5 viral videos that ranked ahead of it? If we do, let's start with this one (bonus points for sitting through all 8 minutes). :) MastCell  21:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What? You think it might cause unnecessary drama?

Seriously, I would first complete the article in my user space. That should limit the fighting. Once it's promoted to article space, it will probably be nominated for deletion, and the vote will probably go down partisan lines. Which is why I need solid sourcing because the only thing that will save the article will be uninvolved editors. So I won't create the article unless I'm sure it will survive AfD.

In any case, I'm not sure I should have to limit which articles I work on because we have editors who are out of control. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you're right - it's not really my place to tell other people how they should spend their volunteer time here, and I apologize for any condescending aspect to what I said above. You seem reasonable, and obviously you've got a realistic understanding of the likely course that things will take, so it's your call. MastCell  23:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No apology is necessary. It's a low priority and I'm working on several different articles anyway. For now, I'll be happy to just get the sourcing done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Why start with a video, when its authors havent an article? I doubt sdo far minnesotans for globalwarming being notable. Correct me if I am wrong however. Polentario (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The video was actually a pretty big hit, over 500k hits on youtube and got mentioned in the press a fair bit. M4GW is fairly well known but i dunno if there would be enough sources for them to create an article mark nutley (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Who verified the sources in the Hide the Decline article, please? Hipocrite (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Look on the article talk page mark nutley (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not use NSAA in the future. NSAA failed to notice obvious information sourced to a blog. If you use NSAA again, and NSAA fails to remove blog-sourced content, I will seek sanctions against both of you. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not tell me what i can and can not do, which blog sourced content are you refering to? mark nutley (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The content sourced from a blog. Hipocrite (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Responded on the article talk page, watts up is good for watts opinion there is no problem with that ref mark nutley (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Do not call me "laddie" again. You may refer to me as "Mr," "Sir," or "Your Lordship," along with "Hipocrite," "H," or "Hip." Hipocrite (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As you probably expected, I've filed a request that your ongoing sourcing sanction be modified, again, due to your use of blogs as sources. You may comment at Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#marknutley_.26_Nsaa. Hipocrite (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Civility parole

Hi Mark, I've placed you on civility parole per the WP:GS/CC/RE report dated June 17th. If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked. Email me or post on my talk if you've got any questions or comments. — east718 | talk | 19:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know mark nutley (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but...

There is no need to argue on my behalf. I present my case, WMC presents his, you present yours, everyone else presents their cases, and we let the Arbs decide on whose commentary best squares with the observable facts, and the best interpretations of policy. If we think people are wrong in their comments, we note the fact once (or trust in the reviewer being able to see it) and then move on. Nevertheless thanks for the concern - but believe me, it is misplaced. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok mate, thanks mark nutley (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Judge Reade, removal of primary document

Gosh, why? I know it's displayed on an external site, but it is a genuine court document. Request you revert. thanks Lower458 (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:blp clearly says Do not use trial transcripts, other court records, or other public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material So no i will not self revert and please do not reinsert that document into the article again, thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. Will undo. (Trying to be fair, but not an expert in Wiki rules) Lower458 (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Source review

I'll take a look, but it's probably going to be tomorrow before I'll have a chance. What's the context of how you're considering using the source? Ravensfire (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as a review of the book, what he says about it mark nutley (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The link you provided did not work - 404 error. I'd prefer to have a link to the actual review, if possible, not to a copy stored on a site run by the author of the book in question. That raises some concerns right there. From a cursory glance, I'd question the weight of the review. Taylor's three books mentioned are on the Troubles and his other work also seems terrorism related. I'm not seeing much info about his knowledge of climate science. His review may be helpful in terms of the quality of the writing, but in terms of the data/conclusions, I've got some doubts. Obviously, I haven't read the review yet, but these are just initial thoughts. BTW - my next major free time could be late in the weekend, maybe even Monday. Got plans for most of the holiday weekend. Ravensfire (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Weird the link works for me, i did ask andrew for a direct link but the review is not online as yet, that .pdf is a copy sent to him by the reviewer. As it is a review of the book and not the science then i don`t think that matters much, but the section from the review i`d like to use is this part as it focus`s on the writing "This book will have repercussions. It is well written, though demanding of constant focus, well laid-out and thoroughly referenced. It should be read by every believer in the authority of scientific institutions – but of course that is not likely. Montford has done a great service to science, to history and to a public grown sceptical of the scare stories upon which vast amounts of research funding, carbon trading and energy technology subsidies depend." Enjoy your weekend mate, have fun :) mark nutley (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I did a bit more looking around, starting with the post you had as a link. At a minimum, I would not use the review until it's actually printed elsewhere. An early copy doesn't mean it won't change, and if you post a quote that gets changed or pulled in the final copy, it will not go well for you. Some of the additional looking I did was into Taylor, and I think you'd have to label anything from him as coming from a skeptic. The amazon user review of his book "Chill" has some disturbing quotes by Taylor - 'But more disturbing in terms of his relationship to truth is when he looks back on his Greenpeace time and confesses: "In truth, in the scientific realms in which I worked, and gained by now, some standing, I was an imposter... My scientific degrees were linguistic exercises in critical review. My performances on television, in public inquiries, on tribunals and commissions, those of an extremely well-briefed lawyer, the ultimate actor"'. His comment "such scientific trials as have been performed in recent years, and I have not had time to pursue my interest in reviewing them, have demonstrated homeopathy's success..." is so laughable it's hard to give him any credibility with regard to science. There are positive comments about him, and some of the other things I found agree that's he's got a good reputation. But some of those statements are literally so far out of whach that I personally would take anything he says about science with a grain of salt. Shoot me a note when the review is published and I'll take a look at it, but keep in mind what I said. You've got a skeptic reviewing a book by a skeptic - that's rarely going to result in a critical view. You tend to get a "feel good" review because the book reinforces their own personal views. Ravensfire (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As a side note - Taylor's page on WP is either woefully out of date, or it's a different Peter Taylor. Ravensfire (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok cool, i actually wish someone would give it a critical review, then i could expand the article, i had hoped to get it up to GA mark nutley (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Um...

"No we can infer that it survived the AFD based on the fact the article was about the satirical aspect of the gore effect, that much is obvious"

I think I know what you're trying to say, but it doesn't translate that way. Perhaps you should re-read and re-phrase? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Erm?

How is the University of Californa's TV not a reliable source? Notice the uploader - click on the link, and you end up with the UCTV's own youtube channel.

I've said this before - there are no black/white definitions of what is and what isn't a reliable source. In this case its a Youtube video with no copyright problems, and most certainly a reliable source - but in general Youtube videos are not reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, because nobody on the internet can use that as a username, get real. You posted just recently that youtube was never a reliable source, make your mind up mark nutley (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Where have i said that YouTube was never a reliable source? And yes. You are right - nobody else on the internet can use that particular username. But in case that you are still in doubt: Here is the press-release for the launch of the channel] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes i checked, so now the issue is that it is a primary source mark nutley (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You're already banned form introducing new sources by yourself. That is because you're not considered competent to evaluate sources. You might pause to think about the consequences William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Were exactly am i introducing a source? It is a primary source and as such can`t be used, it is tagged and if it is not sorted by tomorrow i`ll remove the section mark nutley (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used, but they must be reliable, and they must be used carefully without interpretation. Many YouTube videos have been uploaded by their copyright holders (Bloomberg News, as an example) and are considered reliable enough to cite and link. However, YouTube offers a lot of unreliable user-generated content which we can't use. Sometimes, a user will upload material that is reliable and owned by a copyright holder other than themselves. A good example is a TV fan uploading an archival copy of a newscast or program that was broadcast on network TV. In those cases, we can't link to the content, but we might be able to cite it on a case by case basis. In any case, such a situation may suffice if only for the purposes of verification. Mark, please remember, we evaluate sources separately, not as members of a group that are clearly defined. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

WP:OR is quite specific about primary sources, there needs to be a reliable secondary source backing the claims made mark nutley (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, it's all about how the source is used. Again, instead of trying to appeal to general categories and blanket policies, try to evaluate a source on it's own merits. When you do this, you'll see for yourself how all the policies and guidelines work together to help us choose the best sources in order to write the best articles. So, we don't serve the rules with black and white thinking; The rules serve us as editors. This is admittedly difficult for some people. When you evaluate a source, forget about the rules. When you're done, you'll see how the rules exist to simply support your evaluation. We actually don't even need them, because the research paradigm exists independently of Misplaced Pages. Viriditas (talk)

Trying again, though I suspect it is hopeless: That is because you're not considered competent to evaluate sources. You might pause to think is the relevant bit. Or, more briefly, you're not considered competent to evaluate sources but that is exactly what you are trying, aggressively, to do William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, without doing a thorough investigation, it looks reliable enough to me. Opinions are mixed about student-run sources (which I'm guessing this might be), but the speaker is professor with presumably an appropriate degree. OTOH, there is a some rule about not citing multimedia sources, but that could possibly solved with the appropriate cite template, not sure. Multimedia sources hasn't come up at RSN in a while and for all I know, they might have changed the rule. (Personally, I'm sympathetic to allowing multimedia sources. It's 2010. Most people I know have broadband by now.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hide the decline - We're duplicating our efforts

I already asked the deleting editor to copy the article to my user space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Bugger, ok i`ll get mine deleted then :) mark nutley (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Working together as a team. It's a pleasure to see William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly certain i have asked you not to post on my talk page, please refrain from doing so again mark nutley (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This may all be in moot anyway. I'm guessing and hoping that the three of us will all be topic-banned by ArbCom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Altering others talk page comments

Please don't change others signed comments as you did here. Vsmith (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If a user edits another`s comments saying they are banned as a sock when they are not the ni will revert them, as you are not meant to edit another users comments, i assume you have already warned WMC for doing this? mark nutley (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting and changing the wording are two different actions. Applying strikeout over a users comment is also different from changing the wording. I'm not commenting here on whether the strikeout was or was not appropriate - I'm stating that your changing of a signed comment was innappropriate, see WP:TPO. Vsmith (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nature article for Hide the decline video

Mark, if you need approval for the new source you found, you have mine. It's a news article so it counts as a third-party reliable source. Just remember to say what the article says, nothing more, nothing less. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As the article now resides in your userspace then i do not require source approval, anything i add will be vetted by you i assume :) mark nutley (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to have someone give approval anyway. No, I wouldn't make that assumption. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)