Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:33, 26 April 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)

Blind reverting to ire an editor....

This revert seems to be only made to ire WMC. The editcomment indicates that you haven't got a clue whether the IP was right or wrong - but that you just reverted, because it was WMC who reverted hir.

The talk-comment here is not acceptable under WP:TPG. You did comment on WMC's talk after that, which is the correct venue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No kim, that is the disputed text which was removed and i am trying to do an RFC on. I reverted it back in after nobody replied on the talk page with just cause for it`s removal. Please get your facts straight before making accusations. I will of course read the TPG so as not to breach protocol again. mark nutley (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, WMC's revert was at 13:02. You posted to the talk page at 14:32, were responded to at 14:35, responded to that at 14:38 and were again responded to at 14:44. You did not respond to the 14:44 statement which said, in part "As you either know or at least should know, opinion pieces and editorials are only reliable for the opinion of the author, not for facts." With this lingering on the talk page, you made the following revert - "putting this back, no just reason for it`s removal has been given on talk". It appears to me that a reason for it's removal was given on talk - perhaps you didn't agree with that reason, but do you really think it's your place to state that people you are in multiple violent disagreements with across many articles are not being "just?" I think you should stop edit warring, personally. Hipocrite (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, my post 14:32, 7 April 2010 my putting back the disputed text 16:13, 14 April 2010 thats seven days mate mark nutley (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well - first of all. Your claims of 1RR violation are dodgy - since this could be categorized as a vandalism revert (not an obvious one - but the IP changed factual information to something wrong)

Secondly - you reverted in something that several editors (in fact all editors - except you) disagreed about. A restart in fact of the small edit-war on the 7th of April.

The discussions are located in Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change#Errors-but-OK as well as Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel on Climate Change#Removal_of_Section. You had no inkling of a rationale to break the consensus at that point. That you started an RfC .... Is good. But that would be for proposed new content, and you fail to provide a neutral description of what the conflict is about (you still haven't provided one that adequately describes mine and WMC's objections). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the 1r claim is not about the article, it is what was done on the talk page. I put the text back in based on this in which no policy reasons were given got the texts removal. Your objections were dealt with, i pointed to several links which showed the SPM had errors in it, i then asked you for a yes or no answer if there were errors in the report, your answer was There might be? Who knows. But they haven't been found then (or i haven't read about it in any reference yet) Even though i had shown links stateing there were errors in said report. BTW the revert i did was not the ip one WMC had reverted, it was your reverting of mine Hope this is a bit clearer for you now mark nutley (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No Mark - my objections haven't been answered. In fact i've commented on each of your links previously - in fact i've even pointed out that the SPM says what you claim that it doesn't.... The references simply do not show what you think they do. Since i hope that you aren't misrepresenting deliberately - i must assume that it is simply because of lack of knowledge. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, how about this then the Summary of Chapter 6 on The Social Costs of Climate Change bears little resemblance to the technical chapter it is supposed to summarise. Indeed, the lead authors of that chapter disowned the Summary. and still you say, no errors? mark nutley (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, that is not about the AR4. How about at the very least look at the bloody date? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And this one the IPCC said at the weekend it would re-examine a passage about the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events such as hurricanes in its 2007 IPCC report which they have not actually done mark nutley (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not an error in the SPM, its from a chapter in the WGII report. Don't you know the difference? In fact (as i pointed out previous<beep>ly - it contains a note specifically saying that it is not in the SPM:

....However, the inaccurate passage was 'not included in the Summary for Policymakers section of the report...

Are you at all reading this? Do you make any attempt at all at understanding the references that you give? Sorry, but i am rather fed up! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim i think you misunderstand the ref, the part not included in the SPM was the glacier mistake, extreme weather events were in the SPM. Sorry i had not made myself clearer mark nutley (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK Mark. So where exactly in this quote (the only thing about extreme weather in the text) do you think that it says that there is an error - and even more - where do you see that this error is in the SPM?

As well as the glacier mistake, the IPCC said at the weekend it would re-examine a passage about the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events such as hurricanes in its 2007 IPCC report

Now i happen to remember that particular debacle - it is about a graph by Muir-Woods - and it doesn't appear in the SPM (of WGII (or for that matter any other)) - but in the supplemental material to the WGII). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

They had to re-examine it because it was an error, why would you re-examine something which was correct? And extreme weather events are discussed in the SPM, i`ll go double check if you want but the mistake is there in front of you mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

First: Not in the SPM (as you claim). Second: Claim of Error != Existence of Error. Third: assuming(Error(Specific graph)) !=> "all statements on severe weather" == wrong. Can you grok that? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"How about at the very least look at the bloody date?" Small English tip. Anyone but a Brit found using the term "bloody" incurs opprobrium and even ridicule. Fell Gleaming 19:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought Kim was Danish? I know most of us Brits are descended from the Danes raping and pillaging Celts in the danegeld days but that makes us (part) Danish not them British... --BozMo talk 19:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I fear the Danaans even when they bear gifts.? Virgil was must have had a little Nostradamus in him. Fell Gleaming 20:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Where do the Greeks come into this? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Those where the days :) Well - the Brits did pay us back later..... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, since most of my non-specialized literature is in British English i wouldn't be surprised, if i'm using anglo-britton-specific-expletives. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hah, we showed those buggers at clontarf who was the boss :) long live Brian Boru mark nutley (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You might find this interesting reading

The full edit block I received 2 years ago, for making two offhand remarks to WMC, administered without review or warning within a few minutes of making the statement. In lieu of current laxity, it makes for interesting reading I believe. Look at the comments particularly by "Write Stuff".

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:FellGleaming&oldid=207661242

Fell Gleaming 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not surprising, i`m surprised you came back to the CC related articles though, you must be a little cracked :-) I believe bozmo is a fair guy though, at least he has always been open and honest with me mark nutley (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not questioning his integrity at all; I think his decision in my case was correct. I went away and came back a better editor for it. I think the admins are simply "between Scylla and Charybdis"; prevented for political reasons from enforcing policy as evenly as they would otherwise wish. Fell Gleaming 15:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I Write Stuff is banned user NuclearUmpf, who was banned for threatening to harass gay editors via sockpuppets. Probably not the person you want to be relying on. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I shall endeavor to never attempt the same myself! Fell Gleaming 16:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

MN, that incident is from 2 years ago, and still nothing has changed. Ask yourself: even if you're not wrong, do you really think you'll get fair treatment if you butt heads with WMC? He's been doing this with good faith editors for years now. You really have to stop responding to it, completely. Things have improved significantly lately and his tactics have come under heavy scrutiny, but if you keep responding the way you have been, you will take the blame. I've seen it happen time and time again, and you seem to be following the script to the letter. Please, disengage. ATren (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I`m trying to, he is not making it easy :-), please note i have been polite in out most recent exchange mark nutley (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Things have improved somewhat. Two years ago, he hadn't been stripped of much of his powers. There were many arbcom cases brought for him applying bans on people he had begun an edit war with...and back then you didn't have even a shred of due process; the hammer just fell on you instantly. Fell Gleaming 19:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I am suggesting you not respond at all. There is no deadline. Let the process play out, rather than getting caught up in the middle of it. ATren (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, editor rights may have progressed some on wiki; however, it's all about content. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion

I have removed a comment you made on that talk page. If you wish to post a similar comment that does not violate your civility parole, you are free to do so. NW (Talk) 02:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks mark nutley (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

sorry remind me when I mentioned anything to do with 3RR? --BozMo talk 09:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I`m just going to copy and paste your comment here "Returning from holiday and finding all the above I have also (finally, regretably) lost patience a bit with Mark on this. I cannot believe how much time is being wasted on this page and I think we have gone far enough in proving our desire to be completely even handed. Given the time wasted above, resetting a ban when the last ban was worked around is also not enough. I support a topic ban. On Lar's comment on WMC, I think we should acknowledge WMC is expert at 3RR, aside the things he is not expert at. --BozMo talk 02:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)" My comment was of course about the highlighted bit mark nutley (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Got it (bit thick today). I was replying to a specific comment by Lar and have clarified there. --BozMo talk 13:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom

Hi Mark, if you get a moment, could you explain to me the process for filing an arbcom complaint against an administrator? Thanks. Fell Gleaming 03:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry man i have no idea. I suppose go to the arbcom board? mark nutley (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

On that note, and in response to you comment on KCs page, you need to take up your difficulty with this edit at the appropriate venue.

Obviously KC is not interested, so the next step would be the CC probation page. However there you will find that the small group of participating admins have reached the consensus that the person you are having problems with is worth more to the project than most editors, and you are unlikely to have your complaint addressed.

The consensus seems to be that the problems with this editor are outweighed by their encyclopedic contribution. However in the case of your posted diff you are really just talking about vandalism, adding unsourced slurs to lower the tone of a BLP, so the part about adding encyclopedic content does not apply.

If I were you I would follow FGs route to a higher authority. The CC probation is not a community sanction, it was envisaged and enacted by a small group of admins who have succeeded in isolating CC articles in order to retain control over contributors, and it's authority is open to question given the participating admins consensus to allow certain individuals to continually work against the spirit that the CC probation was supposed to be helping with. Weakopedia (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am banned from bringing enforcement requests against the editor in question. Of any sort. I have been told quite simply, bend over and take it :) mark nutley (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That the CC probation team would enact such a ban without monitoring the behaviour of the editor in question really shows how futile that whole system is. You can't complain no matter what they do, and that gives them the ability to act as they wish. Right now it is the CC probation system and those that participate in it that is failing the encyclopedia. Weakopedia (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not acceptable...

You cannot - and i will repeat this ... cannot use opinion articles as a reference for factual information - you can only use such to state the opinion of the writer. You have been notified several times that Matt Ridley's article in the Spectator isn't a reliable source for such information - yet you repeat this here. Don't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Then attribute it instead of reverting, christ almighty, you slap tags all over an article and when i put in the refs you demand you remove them. Ridleys article is perfectly reliable in the way it has been used mark nutley (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason for the tags. Personal information about BLP's must be rigorously sourced. Even with attribution to Ridley - it wouldn't be. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not acceptable

Comments on a blog are not reliable sources. I could right now go to real climate and write a comment ostensibly from Al Gore saying "I realize now that everything I said about Climate Change is wrong." That's not a reliable source for anything, at all. Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well you could try, i very much doubt your comment would ever appear though as RC moderate all comments. Given Judith Curry is a notable person in the field using her comments from there seemed fine to me, I do of course have another source for said comments. Of course not i have to wait 24 hours before redoing it don`t i. For a man who has quit the CC related articles you are not doing a good job of kicking the habit mark nutley (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, it's really not. If you can get anyone not involved in the CC articles at all to come to my talk page and tell me it's a reliable source, I'll add it back in myself. If you revert war to add it back in, of course, I'll just go to GSCC and ask that you be prevented from further disrupting things. I've tried to get away from the CC articles, but, like I said, I was reverting SciBaby, and then I saw Fel Gleaming and his questionable use of sources, so somehow my watchlist keeps growing. If only you could police people who agree with you to stop blatently violating rules, you'd be rid of me. Your loss, I guess! Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I`m not going to edit war at all. And i have removed a lot of unreliable sources from the CC related articles remember? Like i said i have another source which covers her comments so i don`t see this as an issue. How do you know when an editor is scibaby? Some of the ones i have seen are just a few words, like the addition of The Hockey Stick Illusion to the HS controversy article. I mean how the heck did you know? I don`t want to be rid of you btw, i reckon your a fair editor mark nutley (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"Comments on a blog are not reliable sources." -- Odd I've never seen Hypocrite complain about pro-warming cites to the RealClimate blog. I suppose consistency is too much to ask for. Fell Gleaming 21:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a comment on the blog, not a blog posting, my mistake mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - throwing yourself into an editwar....

Haven't you still got a restriction on editwarring? Yes - i know that you are under 1RR, but RR's are not entitlements. Since you haven't brought anything to the table at DeSmogBlog, and in fact are reverting against consensus (by my count roughly 5 vs. 2 (includes you))... then it doesn't look good. The material btw. may be well-sourced, but completely unreliable - and thus has no value beyond being disinformation --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I assume you mean the alexa ranking when you say disinformation, which btw is a pov, your meant to leave that at the door, not bring it to the table.. I was refering to the Solomon refs which WMC had removed which were reliably sourced. I am unsure how you think my reverting back in well sourced criticisms are edit warring, shall we have a whitewashed article with no crits at all? Also, consensus has not been reached with regards to alexa, therefore it should not have been removed mark nutley (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No Mark, that it is basically disinformation is not POV. When you give information that seems to have content - but hasn't, and which has a high chance of being wrong - then it is disinformation...... And i can see that you are (correctly) stating the same view to Hipocrite at Talk:Bishop Hill (blog)#Alexia... Which is rather strange, since it is the diametrically opposite position of the one you have at Talk:DeSmogBlog. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You like hippocrite are incorrect. I am saying that alexia does not count subdomains effectively, as i showed on the Bishop Hill talk page. Desmogblog is not a subdomain, it is a domain. However i have been reading up further on alexia, it is a junk way of assessing a sites stats, visitors need to have the alexia toolbar installed, a site could get 100k hits and it would not show on alexia if none of the visitors had this toolbar installed. So unless Desmogblog has had the Alexia code embedded into their index.php to count for them, then it is in fact a waste of time, The same issue arises with quantcast, unless you have their code embedded into your index file, it ain`t gonna count your site. And as no site owner will (i would hope) advertise the fact that these exploitable java scripts are running on their sites then quite simply Alexia and Quantcast are good for nothing mark nutley (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you should note your findings to Cla and ATren - because that is exactly what i've been saying all the time. And you should have self-reverted when you realized that you were in error. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I was about to revert as well, so it's 5-3. But remember, consensus is not a vote. ;-) Mark, I suggest you ignore this; one revert is fine. I believe WMC is on 1RR as well, right Kim? (yes, in fact, he is) So have you warned him too? ATren (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

ATren, that is very bad advice. Mark is basically still a newbie (still learning) - and if he ends up getting sanctioned at some point because he is following that advice - will you then follow troop and share the sanctions? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, 1 revert is not a violation. If it is, then bring it to the enforcement board, but realize that WMC is under the exact same restriction and took the exact same action on the exact same page, so I fully expect you to report both; and if you include only MN, I will amend the request to ask that any sanction be applied equally to both (which, BTW, should be nothing because neither violated his restriction). ATren (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually ATren you should know better. When there is already an edit-war in full swing - then your revert can be counted as edit-warring - neither 1RR or 3RR are entitlements. Finally if you look over my history here on WP - i very very very seldom report anyone (or run yelling to an admin as many others) - you will have to have stepped over the line quite a lot of times before that happens. That doesn't mean that others won't do it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, if you had warned both sides equally, and if there weren't such snarkiness in your message, perhaps I would have responded differently. But the way you presented it ("Since you haven't brought anything to the table..") seemed overly aggressive, and I don't think Mark needs to respond to that kind of warning. ATren (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

There is no deadline

Mark, I can't help much with the RFC itself (I've not done that process very much, and not in a long time) but might I suggest again that you take your time and be patient? If the POV tag stays up for a week or a month, who cares? Work it through patiently on talk, and eventually it will come down, especially with people like Cla helping out. You always seem to be in a rush to fix such things, and your zeal actually seems to make it worse -- notice that several responders to the RFC weren't even exactly sure what you were requesting, and if you keep doing that, you'll get a reputation for crying "wolf". Even if you believe others are being tendentious and obstructionist, you have to be patient and let the process play out, or it will blow up in your face. When carrying a full load of dynamite in a rickety old truck, you don't take the unpaved side road even if it's half the distance. ;-)

And I'd also suggest you compose a draft of an RFC in your userspace, and seek outside input before you post it to the talk page. Once it's posted, it's too late for others to help. ATren (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Already doing it mate, i know there is no rush, but the simple fact is the pov tag should not have been put on that article. There are no crits of the book, simple fact. What we now have are editors trying to insert a POV to make the book appear fringe and not accurate. mark nutley (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, the POV tag is probably spurious, but you still have to let it play out. Remember how long the Climategate article had a POV tag? That's just the way it works while the conflict plays out. ATren (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember this too, when readers see the POV tag on an article, more of them will click over to the talk page than usually do to see what is going on. I think what they see there will be very educational about how the AGW topic is treated in Misplaced Pages. Some of them might even decide to get involved. Cla68 (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Even better (or worse?) some of them may decide to read the book for themselves... --BozMo talk 12:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Bozmo it would be good if they did, at least for andrews wallet :)

Unfortunately no library in Denmark carries this book (university,highschool or public), so i have had to make do with searching and reading it via Google books. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You can always order it via Amazon.com or The Book Depository :-) mark nutley (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Since i have a rather extremely long list of more important books that i must/will/should buy, this one simply doesn't have the capability of reaching a spot where it could come on the budget. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:28, 21 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)