Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:09, 23 June 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)

Articles for deletion nomination of The Gore Effect

I have nominated The Gore Effect, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

mark - why havent you been able to insert the german source? I mean you should have known better and ist a major difference wether an effect is being debated in some right wing nutter magazines or as well in a mainstream liberal german Newspaper. Dont make the work of Big Clima Brother so easy. --Polentario (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can`t speak german mate :) mark nutley (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please. Is my english so damm bad? I gave you the translation on a silver plate and bable fishes exist. maxeiner made even a topic out of Connolleys role with the speedy deletion here and the continued existence in Germany on Achse des guten. --Polentario (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your english is fine mate :) I thought you meant why did i not use stuff from the german gore effect article. Maxeiner? thats a blog right? Unless he is a well know journalist the nit can`t be used and someone has already reverted it out mark nutley (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Martenstein" is not a blog, but it is a "Glosse", i.e. a humorous editorial, not a serious piece of reporting. It's at best useful as a primary source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you really doubting the Gore effect is real? I mean if Martenstein would have done a lengthy factual dossier, like the Zeit did about Nir Shavivs Linking cosmic rays and climate, youre probably supposed by true believers to deny it as well. Please understand - this is a widespread joke and one might accept its appearance in a german Glosse about Gore telling AGW bullshit in Peru while people freeze to death over there as proof for the joke having spread globally. I personally assume its as real as the Pauli effect with the difference that Pauli believed in his. --Polentario (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Mark: I mean Connolleys german article has to be written still. Maxeiner is a sort of medium wellknown author, hes blogging at "Achse des Guten (Axis of good)" together with Henryk Broder (an AAA rated polemic), hes been chief publisher of a eco magazin called "natur" and is now in the field of the bad boys and writing e.g. collumns in Die Welt. --Polentario (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, Polentario. You mean to say that not all Europeans enthusiastically support the theory of man-made global warming? Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We all have to greet the hat matey, but we actually dont care a bloody dam as far as factual policy goes, the age of AGW is gone with the pisces. --Polentario (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, congrats on the article being kept. I didn't think that this topic would ever be allowed to survive on Misplaced Pages. However, what you've written is much better than the one I first posted back in 2008. Matthew Drabik (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ottmar Hitzfeld woud say; Great defensive play and one should not forget to attack now and then. Polentario (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It`s great ain`t it :) pity i can`t use the image i made for it though :) mark nutley (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Send me alink please. Polentario (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please try to address content not editors .... or do an enforcement request.

... These do not belong on article talk. If you have a problem with my reverts (i haven't counted), then i suggest doing an enforcement or 3R complaint. Please refactor.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that i'm aware that with the twitter thing i was over (although i'm not aware by how much) 3R - which is why (as said) i was marking this as a BLP revert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not supposed to use BLP as an excuse to bypass WP:3RR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not using it as an "excuse" - i genuinely believe that there is a BLP violation there, and thus that it must per WP:BLP be removed. Do please read our policies carefully. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you genuinely believe there were BLP violations, that's fine, but the way you phrased your previous post made it sound otherwise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Check my comments on the talk-page during the reverts - as well as the talk-page of the user i reverted, and you'd find that i actually did what i could. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Claiming BLP were none exists is spurious Kim, it is not a BLP article it is an article about an expression, i had no intention of bringing an RFE i was just letting you know you had broken 3r`s mark nutley (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All articles that involve living people are subject to WP:BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not an article about a person, if what you say is correct then the vast majority of articles in the CC area fall under BLP as they all reference living people. This is not the case of course, there is no blp issue here, just the one being made up to remove content mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

First line in the BLP page - "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page." Ravensfire (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying al gore was in a place when the weather was crap is not a blp violation. Putting a blp tag on an article talk page which is not a blp is also wrong. For instance Kim claims blp for this edit however it is from a post al gores own site, and repeated by the national review, there is no blp issue there. He removed this twice btw. That`s removing stuff using blp as an excuse mark nutley (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cite error:

Ok so "Cite error: <ref> tag with name "Marowits_2009-11-02_NBBJ" defined in <references> is not used in prior text; see the help page. Cite error: <ref> tag with name "Chivian_2007-10-16_NYT" defined in <references> is not used in prior text; see the help page." is OK?  ??? Nsaa (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Crap no, that`s banana removing that letter to the editor, but macks text is good, lets try to save it ya mark nutley (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem with that :-) Nsaa (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the added content have no refs. It should be added . Nsaa (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of those refs can be found in the first ten or so refs in the article mark nutley (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

your Al Gore image

That image belongs on imageshack and not on Misplaced Pages. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I still think it`s funny though :) mark nutley (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not at all funny. Try this for a start :) http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/denial?page=2 Polentario (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict

you beat me to it. Was just about to undo Polargeo (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool, that`s good to know, we all get frustrated mate, go have a beer and chill for a bit :) mark nutley (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. will do :) goodnight Polargeo (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

1rr

Aren't you on 1rr? Do you think that 16:15, 16 June 2010 and 13:55, 17 June 2010, both reverting the addition of Confirmation bias and Cherry picking less than 24 hours apart is yet another violation of your 1rr restriction? Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Self reverted, got the time wrong, thanks mark nutley (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your revert did not reinclude the two see-also links. Hipocrite (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Further, do you intend to discuss those see-also links on talk, or merely remove them every 24 hours? Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just remove them, they are only there to be pointy, cherry picking has bugger all to do with the gore effect mark nutley (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If you want to remove those see-also links, please discuss on the article talk page before reverting again, where I will happily make my reasoning clear. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• WP:Edit warring is defined by an editor reverting to a preferred version without consensus and not attempting to create one, and as such is disruptive and makes the editor liable for sanction. As 3RR - or 1RR - is not an entitlement but a maximum limitation, non violation of that technicality does not mean an editor is permitted to continue reverting forever (or even an short period). If the reverts are contested, then there needs to be a resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Civility warning

This is incivil and should be struck William M. Connolley (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Q

Do you consider I will give my word to be civil at all times from this moment on. This will mean if i`m insulted or other crap is chucked my way i will get up, go for a fag and then respond. binding? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry what? Am i under a civility parole or not? And yes my word is good, I do not think saying to someone they are full of crap is a personal attack. I am a builder, that`s kinda how we talk to each other, now saying, fuck off you wanker or i`ll cave your fucking head in, that`s an attack. You obviously come from a fer more genial background than I mark nutley (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the supportive link for Familypedia. Robin Patterson (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

re: Request

Sorry, just got time to look at my messages and saw your request. I'll try to look this afternoon and comment here. Ravensfire (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll give you my 2 cents right now - i've been following your development of the article: I have seldomly seen a worse example of POV cherry-picking (SYN) by google. And don't misunderstand me, i certainly think that there is a great potential for an article on this particular topic. One example is your cherry-pick from Desslers book - while this without doubt is in the book, it most certainly is neither the gist nor a significant point in the book - it simply is a cherry-pick of a quote from you. Another example is your description of the Malaria debate, you are selecting Reiser, not because he is significant in the debate (weight), but because his views fit.

There is little secondary source description of the topic, instead you are creating your own essay from various sources that you picked that say something that you feel fit. (that is a synthesis). Look around instead and try to find references that actually describe the concept, instead of examples of the concept. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

My comments

Source - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60H3VE20100120

• Seems a reliable source for the political impact of the accusations to me. I think you should adjust your phrasing some, however. You say "was accused of exaggerating", but don't mention who was accusing. The article mentions Indian Environmental Minister Jairam Ramesh (plus "some climate researchers"). I would also add some of the quotes from the IPCC statement, as they are pretty powerful, plus mention that this was pulled (shows the impact of the accusations). Something like "An IPCC statement in response said that checks were not done properly and that projections used 'poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession.' This projection was removed from the final summary in the 2007 report."

Source - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jan/18/climate-change-himalayan-glaciers

• Seems decent, but you need to change how you use it. You say "The date was based on a report submitted by the World Wide Fund for Nature" which is true, but not complete. The paragraph from the source say "The environmental organisation WWF has admitted that a report on the impacts of climate change on glaciers in India, China and Nepal, which it published in 2005, included an erroneous reference to a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology of the International Commission for Snow and Ice, indicating that it stated "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high". In fact, nothing like this quote appears in the cited document, and the magazine 'New Scientist' has reported that one of its articles from 1999 was the source." You need to include more of that in your statement. There's some other material in the Guardian source that you might want to include, such as the error might have been noticed if it hadn't been buried. Maybe also something about the World Glacier Monitoring Service saying that the Himalayas are "strongly underrepresented". Not sure about that though - too easy to coatrack/OR on that line to get some useful meaning. (IE - if this data is so important, why underrepresented? Just a sign of the pro-AGW trying to hide data ...)

Source - http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/sunday-mail/hidden-doom-of-climate-change/story-e6frep2o-1111114372364

• Interesting piece, but I'm concerned about how you use it. His main point in the article is that the true dangers are hidden. The way you're using the source it appears that his main point is that the claims are exaggerated, then add the "however" clause. I don't like how this is used.

Source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8571353.stm

Source - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/uk-government-rebuked-for_n_500622.html

• Some problems here. The quote you attribute to the ASA about mainstream science is not supported by the source. The article uses the phrase without saying it is a quote. Unless you know for certain that's an exact quote from the ASA, just leave it as the ASA's position. Also, add a bit more detail about why the ads were found bad, pulling from "It noted that predictions about the potential impact of global warming made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "involved uncertainties" that had not been reflected in the adverts. " I'd change the last sentence to "Then Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband defended the advertisements, saying "We probably should have made it clearer that this was a prediction and we should have made it clearer the basis of the claim."
• I'd pull the HuffPost source, its short, adds nothing and not needed here. Stick with the BBC source.

Source - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7778917/Royal-Society-to-publish-guide-on-climate-change-to-counter-claims-of-exaggeration.html

• Seems pretty good. If you can, add a mention of this "The Royal Society will look again at the public communications on climate change after 43 fellows complained that so far the message has not reflected the uncertainty in the debate. " Gives something for why he had to say this. Could also add 'Benny Pesier from the Global Warming Policy Foundation responded to the Royal Society's statement with ""I think it is very wise to accept that while the basic science is solid, we have no idea what is going to happen in the future." '

There's a feel of cherry-picking in the material. Yes, I realize you're trying to work on an article called Climate Change Exaggeration. As it's written right now, I'd call it a POV fork and recommend it for deletion. It's a fairly one-sided article without much balance. Even in just the section I reviewed, there was some obvious skewing in the quotes you used. You need to include both sides when it's there. In particular, if a side is accused of something, you really should include their response. WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and all of that. Ravensfire (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, i will do what you both have mentioned, @ Kim i`m not cherry picking mate, that Desseler quote came up on google books, so i don`t have access to the whole thing. I`ll look through what i can of it in the previews to try and balance out that quote. Dr Paul Reiter, an expert epidemiologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris you really think he carries no weight? mark nutley (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, what i mean about cherry-picking is that you are, actively selecting quotes broken out of context, that support your personal proposition. That would be acceptable in an essay for school (or whatever), but not in an encyclopaedic article. It is POV and a synthesis. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Kim, would you like to help with the article? Or copy and paste sections you think suck and suggest changes on the talk page of the article? mark nutley (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Another issue is that you are (from what i can see) actively rejecting references which do not support the position that you quote. As an example ub the malaria controvesy is one such - you are dismissing the mainstream, and focusing entirely on a single sceptic . Thats not good. It is POV by omission (and weight). There are many other such issues.

But the major problem with your text, is that you are collecting "evidence" yourself, instead of relying on secondary reliable sources for it. For example the lede: You pick 2 quotes you like and turn that into a conclusion.

Summary: Find sources that about the concept not examples of the concept. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As an addendum to the above: I would be very surprised if there aren't scholarly papers on this particular subject. The most relevant focus (as it is in your essay) is media exaggerations, of which there are a rather abundant supply - and thus i'd be surprised if there aren't papers about it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry kim, but i reject your assertions with regards to malaria, there are sources from The Lancet, Nature National Geographic in there which also say that the claims have been exaggerated, are you really saying those are sceptic journals? Come on. The mainstream with regards to malaria is not what the IPCC says i`m afraid. I will listen to epidemiologists on this subject, not climate scientists mark nutley (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you are confusing your references. None of the references to Malaria are from The Lancet (although interestingly enough that particular article disagrees with your view). Your usage of the article in Nature (full version here) is first of all WP:OR, but secondly is also a POV summary (ie. you present it as POV - since the paper does say that Malaria spread is caused by warming - you simply focus on what you want to say). I also wonder whether you have read the IPCC conclusions on Malaria - your comments certainly indicate that you haven't - and that you are taking a POV view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry kim but no, First, widespread claims that rising mean temperatures have already led to increases in worldwide malaria morbidity and mortality are largely at odds with observed decreasing global trends in both its endemicity and geographic extent. Second, the proposed future effects of rising temperatures on endemicity are at least one order of magnitude smaller than changes observed since about 1900 that is a direct quote from one of the ref`s. How can you say i am cherry picking stuff when what i am doing is reading the previews? Are you saying this paper is wrong? And that malaria cases have actually risen? Come on man, the paper is quite clear in what it says, that malarial cases have decreased since the 1900`s mark nutley (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, please try to actually understand what the paper is saying, and what/where the debate is. The paper is not saying that Malaria will not become more widespread caused by climate change (it says the opposite in fact - Africa will see a significant increase), it also doesn't say that there won't be an increase in malaria infections in some regions (it says the opposite in fact). Morbidity and mortality is not the same as spread (people may get it, and not die). It does say that the increase in Malaria will be smaller than the decrease since 1900 - but that is not where the debate is (and it is not what the IPCC says). You are inventing a controversy - and cherry-picking papers and sentences to support your personal viewpoint. . --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation

Please take this as constructive criticism and not an attack or anything else. When you write contraction, you incorrectly use the grave accent ( ` ) instead of the apostrophe ( ' ). That's fine on talk pages, and I'm sure everyone understands what you're saying, but it would be incorrect if you used it in such a way in an article. Kind regards, -Atmoz (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, my grammar was always terrible :) mark nutley (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Check there history

The poster on Chzz talk page has a point. If you look through all 3 person's edit history you will see that they edit the same pages. 190.136.178.239 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Bollocks

Vandalism warming

This, in addition to removing one comment (which is fine), modified one of my comments. This is not allowed under the talk page guidelines and is classified as vandalism. Please do not further modify other users comments. -Atmoz (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)