Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) at 18:33, 26 May 2010 (→Sources: advice: not good enough). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

Speedy deletion declined: Mortarism

Hello Marknutley. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mortarism, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Statemaster is a mirror site - what you found there is their copy of an earlier version here; so it's not a copyvio. However it is a G$ - repost of material deleted at AfD - and I will zap it as such. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok man, wish you had posted like two minutes ago as an ip removed the tag and i reverted him :) mark nutley (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Tagging Articles for Creation submissions for deletion

Hi DarknessShines2, according to the edit history you tagged an article , Chemist's Ring, for deletion. This article was also tagged with:

{{AFC submission|||ts=dated and time|u=Username|ns=0}}

Articles tagged with this tag are Article for Creation submissions. If the article is in mainspace it should be moved to

Draft:Articlename and the redirect should be tagged for deletion. The article tagged for deletion has been moved to the Article for Creation space and the deletion tag has been removed. Misplaced submissions are automatically tagged with a misplaced Articles for Creation template. This template will appear at the top of the page. Before deleting articles please check for this template. Thank you.

--Alpha Quadrant (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Charles R. Chickering

Hi Mark, thank you for your help. I am trying to find biographical information on Chickering. Every time I have searched I encounter numerous examples of his work, esp at the Smithsonian Postal Museum, but alas I have yet to find anything that covers the man and his career at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Even the B.E.P. has little to no info' (that I have found) at their website. If you should encounter such info in your travels please inform me. Again, many thanks. GWillHickers (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your restrictions, and a possible breach of these....

Per these restrictions - Have you checked this with an independent editor in good standing? Neither Orlowski's blog in The Register nor Pielke Jr.'s blog are mainstream media. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The register is a main stream newspaper is`nt it? And Pileke is reliable per wp:prof so i figured that would be ok to use, is there actually a problem with either ref? mark nutley (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, The Register is not a "main stream newspaper" - its not even a newspaper. And you are specifically barred from taking a stand on whether something is a reliable source or not (within the sanction area) - please read your sanctions again and try to understand them. I suggest that you revert yourself - since you are in breach of your restrictions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

MN, I advise you to back down on this rapidly if you don't want an enforcement request William M. Connolley (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have filed an enforcement request, as I was unaware that you were yet again using blogs as sources. You can find it at Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#marknutley. Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow thanks hipocrite you gave me all of half an hour, nice one mark nutley (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You should have done it immediately when i pointed out that you were in breach of your restrictions, restrictions are not there for fun (as you should know, since this isn't the first time that you've been in breach of a sanction placed). It is your responsibility to adhere to the restrictions put upon you. Personally i'd have notified NuclearWarfare who placed the restrictions, and asked for you to be blocked for a short period of time - since this isn't the first time that you have failed to adhere to restrictions placed upon you, in the hope that you may finally understand that such restrictions aren't there for the "fun of it". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is fuck all wrong with those refs and sources and you know it, all were atributed correctly, your only problem is that you want the article deleted and are looking for any excuse to remove content mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark, please calm your language down. I am not the one who is in breach of a sanction, you are. Rules are not here for "fun", and to be broken when ever you feel it is "Ok". Your comment here is indicative of you not understanding that. There is the "fuck all" wrong with the sources, that you aren't allowed to introduce them into an article. - as simple as that. (ie. it doesn't matter one single iota whether they are attributed, reliable or not - you can't introduce them, per your restrictions). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Don`t tell me to calm down, i have followed the rules as laid down, you know those sources are fine and i have done nothing wrong, do me a favour and just go away i`m fed up of this constant shite mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you haven't "followed the rules as laid out". The rules for you are: "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." - and both of the sources you introduced failed that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice: this is the wrong response (as is the above). If you want people to think that you understand the difference between various sources, you need to show it. Trying to brazen this out is doomed William M. Connolley (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to brazen it out, i am being honest. Why not tell me what is wrong with the ref`s? exactly were in your opinon are they wrong? mark nutley (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I can, but you have already been told. You need a bit of introspection at this point. The purpose of your sanction was to prevent you introducing dodgy refs. You are now in some danger of demonstrating that you can't tell dogy from non-dodgy, hence H's proposed extension. What I write as a comment at the RFE (whether you care or not is another matter of course) depends on whether you manage to work this out for yourself, or not. At the very least I strongly suggest you strike your existing statement as a holding measure, and go talk to Cla, or LHVU, or someone you trust William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark, this is the wrong question to ask. It is not whether the sources are reliable or not that is the question - it is whether you broke your editing restrictions. And that is what you should focus on. A good reply at the enforcement board would have been: Ooops - won't happen again - i've self-reverted and raised it on talk. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I can`t self revert, i saw your message, asked a question to get clarification had me dinner and then hipocrite had already filed an rfe and reverted the stuff out. Fuck this shit you guys can keep the cc articles and shove them. I`m happy doing articles on books were i don`t get fucking hounded and abused all the time mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can't still self-revert, that isn't prohibited by Hipocrites action. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok now you have confused me, how can i self revert something which is already reverted? Bearing in mind i can only do 1r and am not allowed to reintroduce an edit which has already been reverted? mark nutley (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I hadn't seen that Hipocrite reverted you. So you are left with "Ooops sorry, i would have self-reverted if i could, but H beat me to it. It won't happen again ... <something about understanding the restriction>". (but really you should be the one doing it - instead of complaining that the world is unfair) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice of page ban

Under Climate Change general sanctions, I hereby inform you of the following result of a recent complaint about your edits:

• Marknutley (talk · contribs) is prohibited from introducing a new source 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.

This sanction may be appealed to myself, the appropriate noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. The Wordsmith 19:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No mark nutley (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"No" what? ...

Mark, take this seriously. Play by the rules, even if you think they are unfair, or don't play at all. You cannot introduce sources at all any more unless you get someone else to vet them. Ask Cla. Ask me. Ask anyone. But ask. Or you'll be in even more trouble. That's just how it has to be. ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have played by the rules, the wp:rs rules, all the sources i used passed those rules, the last rfe was a vindictive request and not even needed, i would have self reverted in given the chance. I have asked The Wordsmith to review the new restrictions if he upholds it then i will consider the situation then, but for now it`s no mark nutley (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are subject to additional restrictions. You have to abide by those or take the consequences. Again, I'm happy to review any source you bring me and offer a good faith assessment of it. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

mn, you can't push the boundaries on something like this. Just like WMC, everything you do is going to be watched like a hawk. You added a new source to an article that is clearly beyond the restrictions (the blog). The only exceptions in the restriction are "articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media". WP:RS is superceded for you by those restrictions, so you cannot rely on that to justify an edit. If it's a new source to the article, and not clearly exempted fro teh restriction, you need to get it checked. Ravensfire (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok would either of you take a look at the sources and tell me if they were used appropriatly and if they are in fact reliable? mark nutley (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Which, the three below? For starters, 1 and 3 are blogs. What specifically makes them reliable? (there are a few limited exceptions to the no blogs rule)... please explain why they qualify and for what purpose. 2 reads like a blog too although it's at The Guardian so I'd have to dig deeper. I can, if those 3 are indeed what you have in mind) ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes the three below, the two blogs are reliable per wp:sps which says Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications Steve McIntyre and Roger A. Pielke, Jr. fall into this catagory. The other is The Register which is used as a source in hundreds of article on wp, it is a blog on there by Andrew Orlowski which is perfectly ok to use if attributed, you can see the text below it is mark nutley (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As MN says, #2 is El Rego, not the Grauniad. And no, El Rego is not an RS William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You`d best get busy then as it is used as a ref in hundreds of articles on WP mark nutley (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Register is going to be hit and miss, especially by subject area. For commenting on tech, it's pretty darn good. Several of its satire pieces have gone beyond "just" an article to a meme do to their popularity and spawning imitations. For something like this, I'd question it as a source. You want sources from people in the field. For the others - see WP:BLPSPS (as noted by Arthur Rubin below) Ravensfire (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve McIntyre wrote on Climate Audit that "Caspar and the jesus paper" a summary written on the blog was, "a detailed narrative written in a lively style of a story that’s been followed here for a few years and re-visited last week with the release of the Ammann SI".

Another summary titled "The Yamal Implosion" was praised by Andrew Orlowski who said "read this fascinating narrative by blogger BishopHill" and by Roger A. Pielke, Jr. who said, "And if you don't know what this is about, good luck catching up to speed (but if you want to try, there will be no better place than Bishop Hill's recounting)"

1. McIntyre, Steve (Aug 12, 2008). "Bishop Hill: Caspar and the Jesus Paper". Climate Audit. p. 1. Retrieved 18 May 2010.
2. Orlowski, Andrew (29th September 2009). "Treemometers: A new scientific scandal". The Register. p. 1. Retrieved 18 May 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. Pielke, Jr., Roger A. (30 SEPTEMBER 2009). "Has Steve McIntyre Found Something Really Important?". Roger A. Pielke, Jr. p. 1. Retrieved 18 May 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

This aint no joke? I assume de:Gore-Effekt needs some further translations. Polentario (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(to MN) WP:BLP has an exception to WP:SPS. SPSs are never considered reliable when BLP material is considered. Some "blogs" are actually edited by a reliable source's editorial staff, so those would still be WP:RS in this context.

I'd also be willing to vet references for you, if I happen to be on at the time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Pielke and McIntyre blog posts cannot in general be used as reliable sources. The Register can with attribution. Keep in mind, however, that many Wikipedians dislike the Register for a number of reasons, perhaps because it often criticizes Misplaced Pages, so you may enounter some resistance when using it. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Appeal to ArbCom. This is the definition of censorship or it is the invitation to form teams. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys, i know you can`t use a blog in a blp, this is however not for a blp it is an article about a blog, pielke and McIntyre are both published scientists in the field this pertains to so surely they are reliable per wp:sps? it says it right here it wp:rs Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. How are these two guys not reliable under that criteria? mark nutley (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The statements made are about a living person, rather than about his blog or blogs he comments on. WP:BLP still applies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

But they all say Bishop Hill, not anybodys name? How is it a blp thing whe nno names are mentioned? mark nutley (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The very first line of WP:BLP: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page." "Any" means what it says. More: "This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages." -- ChrisO (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris look above to what i added to the blog article, were in there is information about living persons The links are to an essay, no names are mentioned it the text i added, just Bishop Hill? mark nutley (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In a way I sympathize with Mark, because the sanction against him is poorly drafted. It says that he should get the opinion of an experienced editor before introducing sources. But experienced editors can disagree, as they did above, and his obtaining such advice he might construe as a "seal of approval" when editors on the page may disagree. I see this as a recipe for more conflict. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If he had sought any editors approval before introducing the source and received such, he could have introduced it. If he started forum shopping after rejections, that would be a separate problem, that would need a separate discussion, but it is not currently prohibited. Some of the sources he's used are so transparently bad that no editor who actually looked into them would ever sanction them. Diffs on request. Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree about some being transparently bad. I was involved in that original dispute, in fact. What bothers me about this sanction is that I don't think it changes anything. I'm sure there are experienced editors out there who feel that blogs are OK, for instance. There are differing opinions over the Register, just in this discussion. I think the original sanction might have been better, perhaps if toughened. This is bad not just from the standpoint of Mark, who is going to get dragged into more disputes in which he is going to feel right, but from the standpoint of the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You made an oopsie on a user talk page

On User talk:LakersFanKB24, you fully transcluded the {{hangon}} template. I have a feeling you intended it to show up as brackets and the name, not a transclusion (I fixed this). By transcluding it, you nominated that user talk page for speedy deletion. If you want to make a template show up like a link, use, for example, {{tl|hangon}} to make it show like I think you intended. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

MSN

Hi mark, thanks for the notice regarding the deletion. I was personally unsure of whether to create the article, I should know better than to throw something unreferenced into Wiki. I'll see if I can add the info into the Serial Number article and find some sources. Rodface (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 13:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources: advice

Although your probation is in terms of *adding* sources the clear implication is that you are not trusted to evaluate sources. Thus, you should also take care on *removing* sources. This edit fails that test. Unless you do take care, you can expect to be back before the beak to have your probation tightened William M. Connolley (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That is an op-ed which i have been told plenty of times is not suitable for use in a blp, it stays out. mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please cite where you have been told that, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That is an op-ed which i have... that was exactly the sort of response that got you into your current probation. Please, slow down, ask advice from someone you trust before doing this again William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My thinking: Marknutley is right that salon.com is not the best source for that statement. But that statement has to be widely publicised, it's not credible to assume all the followon references dissecting it were to a statement not actually uttered. So instead of removing the source, he should tag it for replacement, leaving it in place for the nonce, or find the replacement himself and do the replacement. IF he fails in finding the replacement, something needs fixing (why do all the followon sources ref the event, what's going on?) and a discussion on talk should ensue. (I came here because Marknutley has queued up something he wants me to look at.) WMC's advice that Marknutley should ask advice first before removing sources... happens to be correct in my view. It's not delivered in a very collegial way, at all, but it's correct. ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You've taken it out again . Your first removal was a revert (of whatever edit added that source). Your second is a violation of your 1RR parole. It is also a violation of the advice Lar gave you, above William M. Connolley (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops i was half an hour out but i claim BLP exemption. Plus lat actually said to find a better source, which i will. Until then blp applies and op`eds are not good enough sources for a blp, i see hipocrite has already found another source i shall try to find another. mark nutley (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you actually disputing that Monckton said it? When it's all over the web, transcripted, and the video of his speech itself is viewable? Why don't you ever bother to do your homework before sticking your feet in it again? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don`t care if it`s all over the web, using a blog in a blp is not on mark nutley (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a self-published blog. "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry hipocrite but were is the proof that this blog is under full editorial control? I`m just going by what several experianced editors have said here Are they wrong then? mark nutley (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Cease disrupting wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not disrupting anything, i am being extra careful with regards to sources and especially BLP`s, please see the article talk page mark nutley (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP exemption is not acceptable given your history with sources and Lar's response, above. Are you prepared to back away from this? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Source cleared?

Who did you clear this addition of a source with? I'm not saying you're wrong to include it, but you are "prohibited from introducing a new source 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." Hipocrite (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It was cleared with Cla mark nutley (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Please pre-clear sources on-wiki in the future. Hipocrite (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I`ll clear them in a way most expedient for myself. mark nutley (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless you want to be queried like this for EVERY source you add, you really need to do this on wiki. On principle, it's better anyway to do this on wiki. Off line stuff just causes trouble because it looks like you're hiding something. Create a user subpage, give a link to it on your user and talk page and keep a running track of sources that you'd like to be vetted. If the process isn't transparent, you're just going to end up in more trouble. Ravensfire (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ravensfire is correct. While I would have approved your most recent source, in the event of a source that is questionable or wrong being approved via a non verifiable format, you're going to have a he-said-she-said problem. Please keep an on-wiki log of these approvals in your user space, and state that such can only be edited by you and others you authorize to edit it. I won't get in the way of your approval process, and I would not countence others doing so. Hipocrite (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Indur

I made some general cleanup edits to your draft on Indur M. Goklany. Feel free to ask me any questions you might have as to why I made the changes I made. NW (Talk) 14:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope it all looks good, thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark, at your offline request I have reviewed the sources as of that version, and put my findings on the talk page. Please advise of any questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)