Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:54, 7 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)

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)

Although I did not formally restrict you from doing so, I would highly advise you to clear this sort of thing with Cla68 first. NW (Talk) 11:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That was done before any restriction from you, and if i see unreliable blog sources in an article i`ll remove them, given my current restriction was brought on by my single use of a blog in a blp you are now telling me not to remove blog sources from blp`s? Erm, no. Also why not have a pop at the experienced editors who actually reverted that blog (which is an attack piece btw) back into the article? So go and have words with WMC and John Quiggin. Hey, maybe they should also have to ask if a source is reliable? and then when they do add content which is reliably sourced and it gets removed they of course can`t put it back, instead they can waste time arguing on talk pages mark nutley (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that this applies certainly to the JBS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of copyvio

I have removed the synopsis section from Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History as it was identical to the Product description at Amazon.com ... possibly from the bookjacket blurb(?). Please don't copy/paste text from other sources w/out attribution. Please read WP:COPYVIO. Vsmith (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn sorry, i forgot to rewrite it, shall redo it today mark nutley (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you cannot just rewrite a copyrighted product description like that, as doing so would make it a derivative work. You have to rewrite the synopsis section from scratch. NW (Talk) 11:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That`s what i meant when i said rewrite, i`ll be redoing it from scratch. I had copied the now removed text into the article to use as a guide only. mark nutley (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing restriction question

Your sourcing restriction states "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 climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing." Which contributor in good standing did you run this piece on a tv-stations website through? Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You think Fox News is not part of the MSM? mark nutley (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly not a newspaper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What he said. Obviously, you misunderstood the restriction, so I'll let it go as I didn't think the edit was terrible. Just a heads up that you were likley in technical violation. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I`ll ask NW to clarify on this, surely news organizations are ok to use mark nutley (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this was a technical violation of a strict reading of the restrictions, but it wasn't one that I intended when writing the restriction. Media like Fox News is acceptable for you to cite. NW (Talk) 19:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank god for that, the BBC might get a bit pissed if i had to run off and ask for permission to use them as a source :-) mark nutley (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Jaworowski

I've started by taking the question to WP:RS/N - depending on results there, i will then check at WP:BLP/N.

If you feel that i haven't explained the situation fairly and neutral, then please briefly state the specifics of your disagreement there, so that we can get the input from uninvolved editors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate Audit

Mark, it's not a big deal if the article is a redirect right now. If you'd like, please copy it over into your sandbox and I'll help get it up to speed and then we can repost it as a viable article. I think it will take a few weeks, but it's more important that the article is solid than rushed. Cla68 (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok will do mark nutley (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Climate Audit deserves a separate article and if it's ok with you chaps, I'd like to volunteer to assist in bringing the article up to scratch. Thepm (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I started a rewrite Jump in any time :), does anyone know why i can`t link to www.wikio.com? Why is it blacklisted? mark nutley (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Back and forth in endorsements at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Lar

To Collect, Hipocrite, and Marknutley: I thought back and forth in endorsements was discouraged. You may want to move your comments to the talk. I could be wrong though. Since I left this note at several pages you may want to discuss it at my talk, dunno. Your call. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It is, it is why i did not reply to hipocrite in that section again after i had clarified my position mark nutley (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Probation

Can you please show where you cleared this with your mentor? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My probation does not prevent me from editing articles, so long as i use reliable sources like Channel 4. What exactly is the problem with the source? mark nutley (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Figured you'd want to stay within the letter of the probation ("Channel 4 News" isn't a newspaper). This edit though is clearly and example of "reverting the removal of sources that he added to an article without first gathering talk page consensus". Isn't it? Guettarda (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

NW clarified above that all MSM outlets were ok to use.I forgot abut not reverting stuff in, i looked all over the article for the muir stuff but that seems the only place to put it as it is the only place muir is mentioned. Were do you think his resignation should be put? mark nutley (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, cool with the former. Try and be careful with the reverts. As for the Russell stuff - since the article doesn't go into any details about the commission, I don't think this one detail should be in the article. Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any articles about the actual enquiry`s? Perhaps one to cover them all would be good, what do you think? mark nutley (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

RFCs

I though I had demonstrated to you how to write an RFC when we did it together. Instead of writing a neutral RFC that provided a vehicle for both sides to present their arguments, or writing an RFC that was written for the enemy, explaining only the side you don't agree with, you've yet again written an RFC that mischaracterizes the opinions of people who disagree with you, at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Request_for_comment. Why is it that you won't change your bad behaviors, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC) What are you on about? How is Should the resignation of Philip Campbell from the muir review and what lead to his resignation be covered it this article? mischaracterize what other editors have said or think? That is as neutral as it can get for gods sake, it`s a question and the proposed text how else can it be written? mark nutley (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If I show you how to do it, will you run any and all future RFCS through me before taking them live? I'm not interested in wasting my time teaching you how to do something if you're just going to ignore me. Hipocrite (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok let`s do that mark nutley (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's how you do it.

First, you put the following in the text

{{tl|rfctag|CATEGORYHERE}}

Then, following that, you describe the dispute in a way that people who typically disagree with you would describe it. In this case:

It has been claimed that this edit is misplaced and is "minor puff." Should infomration about Philip Cambell's resignation from the review be included in the article, and if so, how and where should it be included?

Then you write subheaders

Arguments for inclusion

• In here you can make whatever points you want to.
• This is where you can describe the dispute the way you think it should be described.

Arguments against inclusion

And here, you write "Could Guatadera or WMC please write a brief summary of their points and remove the "tl" tag from the RFC header if they think this RFC is fair?

Then you put the statemens by invovled and uninvolved parties.

See, then both sides think the RFC is fair, as opposed to your current use of RFCs, which appears to be anything but an attempt to gauge what the community thinks, but rather an attempt to get the community to agree with you. Hipocrite (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks a lot, i will do it like this from now on. Should i modify the current one running do you think? mark nutley (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Forthcoming user conduct RfC

For your attention: Talk:Bishop Hill (blog)#Time to deal with the root problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Carbon Dreams

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Carbon Dreams. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carbon Dreams. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio again

I've just removed a direct copy from Barnes and Noble from Carbon Dreams. Vsmith (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked for a week for repeated copyright violations. Your careless editing must stop. Vsmith (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, Mark, you can't just go and copy an entire synopsis verbatim from an online bookseller. You should know that. ATren (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Is a week the appropriate length here? If the last block was two days, shouldn't the next one be four days? If the standard is a week, I'm ok with that as long as it is applied consistently across the 'pedia. Cla68 (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the second copyvio I've removed from this users edits (see above). And this is the second article written by this editor that I've looked at in the last two days. How many more such problems are there? His reaction above was "Damn sorry, I forgot...", and he didn't think about "remembering" this one? This is simply careless editing. I'm willing to listen to other admin concerns re: block length. Vsmith (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad form but fair use and an over zealot block length. The ed should be freeed to correct themselves and restore wiki in goodness. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a mathematical progression of block lengths; this isn't a punishment, it's a way to protect the project from a particularly insidious sort of harm. On Misplaced Pages (and in my experience as an administrator) there are three areas which tend to attract prompt – and generally unanimous – enforcement action: issuing legal threats, engaging in copyright infringement, and getting sloppy with BLPs. Copyright violations damage the reputation of the project as a whole, and they waste the effort of any editors who may (in good faith, making the assumption that prior contributions are legitimate) base their work on infringing material.

If there are any other 'articles' that Marknutley has created which contain (or consist primarily of) copy & paste material, he needs to be open about that now, before further damage is done. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The argument that blocks are only preventative is disingenuous, and I don't mean that as an attack on what you said, but as a reflection on one of the dichotomies in Misplaced Pages's administrative processes. Blocks are also used to correct the behavior of editors who have violated a policy or guideline as well as immediately protect the 'pedia. This means, in effect, that blocks are also punitive. I have no problem with that, but we should openly admit that this is the reality. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Further copyvios removed from Susan M. Gaines and Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History Vsmith (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed a copyio from Tao: On the Road and on the Run in Outlaw China . It is from Goodreads here. Cardamon (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Vssmith, after you warned me the last time i fully intended to go through the artilcle`s i have made to ensure they were up to scratch, i request i be unblocked so i can actually do that please mark nutley (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Scratch the above, a week off will probably do me good mark nutley (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea Mark. It's inconceivable to me how you would have such a blatant copyvio in an article you promoted to namespace. If it was an accident, then the only explanation that makes sense is you copied it with the intent of either direct-quoting it or paraphrasing, and then later forgot to do so, but even that indicates that you are still trying too hard and moving too fast. You have to slow down and stop being so impatient. Misplaced Pages isn't going anywhere, and neither is climate science, so why are you in such a rush? Maybe a week will get you to relax and take it more slowly when you come back. ATren (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Come on, MN - you should know better than to do this. Never, ever, ever copy and past material into an article, even if it's "just" in your user-space or off-line. It's quick and easy, and basically lazy, and it will (and has) come to bite you. Going back to clean it up is a nice offer, but it never should have been there. You've now caused folks to view your edit with even more distrust, and will probably cause nearly everything you've done, and will do for a while, to be scrutinized by more people. You've got the motivation and time to be a prolific editor, but copyright violations are the third rail on WP. Touch it and bad things happen. Ravensfire (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I know guys, i was just lazy and not paying attention. Big mistake not to be repeated. I`ll work on stuff offline from now on then copy and paste that as an article, be safer than doing this again. Sorry for the trouble caused mark nutley (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Just remember, even there, to never paste stuff into your article file directly from the source! Ravensfire (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

One more . Guettarda (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Two more Guettarda (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Instead of Guetterda's ad hoc screening, is this a problem which will require a formal copyright investigation to clean up? There does appear to be a pattern of plagiarism and infringement, and a systematic examination of contributions may – unfortunately – be the only way that we're going to get all of them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

O bollocks, those are in my user space and are drafts. There is nothing wrong with having stuff like that in your userspace as a guide and you know it, now stay off my userpages and stop looking for trouble were none exists mark nutley (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark, that's not true at all. All text put on this website is subject to our policies - when you edit your user space, right below "Save page" there's text that says "All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Misplaced Pages's Terms of Use before you submit it." Hipocrite (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

But when the gore effect was put up for afd someone mentioned the stuff i had copy and pasted, to use as a guide and another editor said that was ok as it was not in main space? Plus i already said above i`ll do stuff like this offline from now on, but i can`t do anything about it at the moment as i am blocked for a week mark nutley (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The "other editor" was wrong. Everything in Misplaced Pages is visible to the world, and hence "published". You cannot publish things under copyright without the consent of the copyright holder. Please don't take this as an attempt to rub it in, but as an explanation of a critical concept on Misplaced Pages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As an aside (and Stephan is right about the law) stuff in your user space is also quite likely to be spotted by copyright owners because it is indexed by robots. Your user talk subspace like User_talk:Marknutley/Sandbox is noindexed and therefore (whilst still illegal) is much less likely to trigger automated plagarism systems like copyscape. --BozMo talk 20:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

CCI

Hi. I understand that you are currently blocked, but wanted to advise you that a contributor copyright investigation has been opened to see if there are additional issues. Because it seems that you may be editing under your real name, I have opened it under today's date. You can see it at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/20100506. Because you have already been notified of Misplaced Pages's copyright policies, you will not be given notice if new issues are discovered by the volunteers who contribute to that CCI. Instead, the resolution of each article will be noted directly on that page. If a problem is detected, the listing will be marked with a check mark and, usually, a note left explaining what action was taken. If no problem is detected, the listing will instead receive an "x". Because your mainspace contributions are relatively few, this investigation may go somewhat quickly. However, there is a backlog, so there may be some lag before volunteers begin to evaluate these contributions. You may wish to add it to your watchlist in case it is dormant for some time if you wish to keep an eye on its progress.

When the listing is completed, it will be courtesy blanked and archived. --Moonriddengirl 18:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Please

forget it. As ThePM says it`ll all still be here when i get back mark nutley (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Good thinking - your unblock request (that I was about to decline) did not address the reason for your block: a massive history of continual copyright violations, even after warned to stop. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't

MN - seriously mate, go to the movies, go out for dinner, watch tv, spend some time at the library, go fishing, go train-spotting, go surfing, build a scale model of the QEII out of matchsticks. Just don't hang around here. Nothing here will be irretrievable after a week and you'll look so much the better for having copped it sweet. Thepm (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but i don`t want my articles deleted :( mark nutley (talk) 10:51, 7 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)