Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ATren (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 15 January 2010 (→Suggestion on the thrust of the RFC: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Hi, I noticed that you're edit warring on this while accusing others of doing the same. Would you like to try a different method? Please let us continue the discussion at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I'll try to get the other editors to stop, too, but I'm contacting you first because apart from Thegoodlocust who was blocked and Stephan Schultz who seems to have stopped you are the editor who has been most aggressive over the past 24 hours. An RFC is ongoing and an administrator is watching this article carefully, so it isn't in our interests to misbehave. --TS 21:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You got it, i have noticed wmc has broken the 3rr rule though, what should be done about this?

And to be honest i`m not wanting to edit war, but if the other guys actually were constructive and helped to edit the article so they don`t find the addition so offensive i would not mind so much.

The rules even say you should not revert without taking it to talk but the other guys just won`t do that :( --mark nutley (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC (please don't call him "will") did not break 3RR as far as I can see. I would block him if he did. --BozMo talk 23:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I wouldn't now as the page is protected so rules say no block. But the 4RRs were not in the same 24 hours. Edit warring though is another matter. --BozMo talk 23:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ya sorry i looked again, mu bad :) i`m still not 100% on how everything works --mark nutley (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. When I am around I would be happy to explain stuff although on 3RR and blocks but I am not at the "expert" end of things and only block very clear cases (sometimes what exactly counts as a revert is technical). WMC is an expert and used to do a high proportion of all the 3RR blocks when he was an admin, so you could also ask him if something was a 3RR. If someone does a 3RR normal protocol is to tell the person first in case thy made a mistake and want to revert it. Despite some people's view of WMC he is pretty helpful at explaining that kind of thing. On GW etc a lot of the problem is people not realising how crumby their local media coverage is and seeing bias when articles appear to stick to the letter and spirit of the rules. Similar problems exist elsewhere on WP (how nasty are big corporates for example)--BozMo talk 08:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way am enjoying reading your current exchange on IPCC, keep going. --BozMo talk 13:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i am trying to put across just how much impact this mistake has had, but i doubt those against it`s inclusion will be swayed by it :) mark nutley (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well so far I think you are ahead on points. For the moment though I am happy to watch. It is quite nice seeing people who are often right squirm :-). --BozMo talk 14:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in, but it won`t change a thing they`ll just keep saying it`s wp:weight and noting will be decided :) --mark nutley (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We aren't done yet. --BozMo talk 20:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol, see going in circles again :) It would be nice if one argument finished before another flared up. --mark nutley (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile on the other circle you could answer my question on AR4 which was addressed at you. :-) --BozMo talk 23:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thought i had @ 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC) :) mark nutley (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in this

I created User:Thegoodlocust/InnocentUntilProvenGuilty as a centralized place to record falsly accused/blocked "sockpuppets" of Scibaby. Feel free to add yourself (details are good!). I'll try to work on it slowly since there is so much material there. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Goright has one like this already, survivors of scibaby i think it`s called :)

I had created a category but that turned out to be controversial so I agreed to delete it. We can do a better version as an actual page. Since TGL has created one I won't duplicate it at this point. --GoRight (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Had not realized yours was gone goright, i`ll add myself in then --mark nutley (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Would either of you like to help out on this article i am working when you have a moment feel free to do so btw ]]

Gore effect

Well it made me smile (including the picture) but I have never heard of the Gore effect (barely heard of Gore really). At present though I doubt the references are good enough to survive an AfD. And it reads too much like a definition (per wiktionary) and not like an encyclopaedia article. No chance of a better source on it? --BozMo talk 21:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can`t believe you have never heard of the gore effect :) I can get more sources for it easily, the phrase is kinda famous :) I`ll play around with the wording and see how i go.

I guess from the article that the Gore affect is kind of a USA thing. I don't follow foreign news ;) --BozMo talk 20:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And why would it get an afd? and (always an and ain`t there) what is an afd :) --mark nutley (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD is WP:AFD or in english Articles for Deletion. Gore effect has already been through such a process, and got deleted (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gore Effect), if you want a revival of this article to survive an AfD, then you should try to figure out the objections raised during the last AfD. There are some arguments that you should heed (fx. WP:Avoid neologisms). Good luck :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that link kim, i get the impression it was removed due to a lack of sources? Would you agree with that assessment? Their are a shedload of available sources citeing the gore effect nowadays :) How many do you think i should gather up? --mark nutley (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh - that is well worth a chuckle; now I can cross "learn something neat from Misplaced Pages" off my To Do list for today. I was going to point out the sources in the old article, but I see now that BozMo has posted the whole thing to the draft talk. There is also an older Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gore effect (minuscule e), but that one only cites the blogger Tim Blair and a deadlink.

Neologism and lack of sourcing appear to be the major concerns raised at the previous AfDs. I would say that showing notability is more a matter of showing depth of coverage in a couple sources (the original coiner of the term plus someone else should do it) than just raw number of sources - a trivial or passing mention or silly season piece is likely to be dismissed. I have not actually checked the sources you are using, just mentioning some common arguments at AfD. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You should be aware of but there may not be any need for further comment there. I recommend that you work expeditiously to recraft the article as a description of a pop culture phenomenon or something similar to deflect the argument that it is being used to try and describe an actual physical effect. Yes, that's ludicrous, but why even give them an angle? --GoRight (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The editors who were expressing a lot of concern about the article had trimmed it back to basically nothing, which was OK. I took a stab at using the existing sources to make it more interesting while trying to stay within the bounds that might still be acceptable. There is still more to do. I have only included the events from two of the sources. The other sources should be used to briefly summarize the events mentioned in them. We can also look for additional sources for other events, and we should probably but a little more effort into representing the critics viewpoint. I included what was there from the source I have covered already, but there are likely other sources out there that cover this from the other side of the issue. I don't think it will be accepted if we add too much more to the lead. The body thus far is a simple list of events that, hopefully, won't be too controversial since it only claims to be a list of media reported claims. See what you think. Add more events from other reliable sources, etc.

Throw it away if you prefer to rewrite yourself. We should review the neologisms policy stuff and make sure that we have those bases covered. Give that a go if you want as well. --GoRight (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers mate, i hope the delete won`t happen after the work that has gone into it, i`ll put aside some time tonight to do more on it. mark nutley (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy

I was always taught that a gentleman only offends deliberately. Anyway you may read WP:DNTTR which is an opinion not policy, and not binding, but some old hands don't like templates. By the way don't give up on good faith. There is lots around despite some jaundiced perspectives which miss it. --BozMo talk 21:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I`m sorry when was i discourteous? I was under the impression you had to place the template if someone made a contentious edit or revert? I`m assuming you mean the article when you say jaundiced perspectives? maight i sk you if you ahve time to take a look and tell me if it is in breach of the rules, i have looked over the rules carefully and i am sure my addition does not breach them. --mark nutley (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy is often in the eye of the beholder. I will look at the article --BozMo talk 21:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The jaundiced bit was more to do with others on the talk pages including here. On Pachauri I am not sure that the bit you added broke BLP but the guy is mentioned many hundreds of times in the Telegraph (on a basis search excluding the blog pages) and it is hard to see why this call for his resignation is sufficient weight to include versus all the other stuff. It is kind of a bit like including "Dawkins says there is no God" in an article on the Archbishop of Canterbury. However where I do sympathise is that these kind of bits ot trashy criticism are included in some of the skeptic bios and when I have time I am taking them out etc. --BozMo talk 21:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV warning

I don't know if other people have told you already, but just in case, here's an official administrative warning from an uninvolved neutral administrator: edits like your initial draft of the "Gore Effect" page () display a reckless disregard for NPOV and are therefore disruptive. In a sensitive topic area like climate change such shenanigans cannot be tolerated. If I see you recklessly pushing your POV in a manner like this once more, you will be indef-blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, dude, this is already being discussed extensively at . This warning is BS and indicative of a POV on your part. You seem to be trying to wrack up a lot of indefinite blocks lately based on nothing, except of course on the points of view that you don't agree with. --GoRight (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What the MfD discusses is the fate of the article. What I'm dealing with here is the behavioral issue about the author. The warning stands, and is extended to you too, since I see you aided and abetted in writing that draft. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Actually no he did not, i wrote it goright has helped to rewrite it after it went up for deletion, get your facts straight please before accusing people and withdraw gorights warning please. Also i was not pushing a pov. I was working on a wip in my own userspace which i believed was ok. I asked for advice on it so as not to break rules with the article. As it stood at the time it was a rough draft and needed input. The gore effect is a well documented urban myth and it is hardly my fault that climate related articles are so sensitive, nor is it my fault that proponents of AGW have an issue with it. I am not being reckless with this wip, i am being careful. Recklessness would be putting it in mainspace, not creating a rough draft and then asking advice. I have not acted recklessly nor was i pushing my POV. --mark nutley (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Then perhaps you had better extend it to me? As another uninvolved administrator (except I suppose I voted at the MfD which was an involvement) I also made some comments on this user space article and in general I think there is community support for a wide latitude on user space drafts. Indeed part of the purpose of user space is to put together drafts from materials which do not adhere to policy, in order to discuss balance and clean them up. --BozMo talk 08:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, this warning is BS. The MfD lists many opinions on the fate of the article in question and is decidedly no consensus. If the subject matter is inherently the "reckless disregard for NPOV" that you purport it to be, then the MfD would have snowed delete. It hasn't, so the subject matter isn't. So do you intend to indefinitely block every editor who holds a minority POV on any science topic you ever look at? You appear to be well on the way to establishing a reputation for just that. I assume you are aware that there are policies governing even your own behavior, right? Since we're tossing about meaningless warnings tonight, consider yourself warned. Have a nice day! --GoRight (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, You are being way too argumentative here. Please use reason before rhetoric. --BozMo talk 08:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. I view his recent actions (not just here) but regarding Pcarbonn, Dual Use (whom he indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet when the SPI said no such thing, I have asked for clarification from delaney), and now this as just bald face provocation. But I've been a bad boy so I will slink away now ... --GoRight (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my rationale here: there is a difference between mere "normal" POV editing, and what I have been calling "reckless POV editing" here. The former is, unfortunately, a common phenomenon, and it is up to editorial debate to iron it out. The latter is an ipso facto disruptive pattern of editing, which should not need to be handled by editorial debate but may have to be met with administrative intervention. Reckless POV editing means making edits which any rational observer, by applying simple common sense, should recognise as obviously unacceptable.

Your initial versions of the article (after GoRight had made his first contributions to it and immediately before the speedy deletion nomination ) contained the explicit claim that the "Gore Effect" was real: it was claimed to be a "phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail, or snow whenever Al Gore visits an area"; it claims that "instances" of it "have happened", and that "evidence has continued to mount suggesting a correlation". These claims were all unhedged, stated with a straight face, ostensibly as claims about a real fact in the real world.

Now, the claim that weather phenomena are magically sensitive to an individual's activities is, prima facie, obviously nonsensical. No rational adult person with an elementary amount of education in a modern society could possibly, even for a minute, entertain this claim as a serious proposition. It's analogous to claiming that the moon is made of green cheese. If anybody did take it seriously, they must be caught in patterns of magical thinking on the intellectual level of a ten-year-old, or they must be in a state where they allow their political agendas to get the better of their rational judgment in a rather extreme way. In either case, they should not be Misplaced Pages editors.

Good-faith rational editors should not be forced to waste their time refuting, salvaging or correcting such nonsense. You forced multiple editors to do just this. This is highly disruptive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish, I have not forced anyone to do anything, people to what they do here of their own free will. As stated it was a WIP, it was in userspace and was therefore not disruptive. mark nutley (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Several well respected editors had "assisted" in the recreation of the article into user space and provided advice for the purposes of cleaning it up. It was not disruptive there in user space at all. The disruption BEGAN with the aggressive action to nominate the article for speedy deletion in the first place. That's when things swerved into being disruptive, not before.

You should also note that the article's notability is as a form of political humor. This should be obvious to any rational observer, by applying simple common sense. This argument that people might be fooled into believing that it was a true natural phenomenon holds no water and carries no weight. It is a faux excuse being used to hound and harass a new editor. --GoRight (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't for spreading "political humour" (and in fact, no, it was not recognisable as such anyway, and I have no indication the original author intended it as such). Creating "humorous" hoaxes is disruptive too, and it makes no difference whether it was created directly in article space or in user space, since it was clearly marked as something ultimately intended for the latter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? the links here Political_humor say otherwise.

(edit conflict) "Misplaced Pages isn't for spreading 'political humour'" - True, but it is here for documenting notable social phenomena that is embodied by that political humor. I find it curious that you are forced to keep referring to the article's initial state rather than what it has become. It seems to me that this has followed a perfectly acceptable and logical course. Mark arrived at a first pass of the content and then asked for feedback (which he certainly got but not from the venue he expected). As a result of that feedback the article has been improved, all perfectly safe within user space. Is this not exactly how new articles should come into being? --GoRight (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, in fact, it isn't. If you want to write an article about the Moon, you are not supposed to first write a version that consists of the claim that "the Moon is made of green cheese", and then leave it to others to write something acceptable instead. You are supposed to skip that first stage and write something acceptable right away. If Marknutley had wanted to write a responsible NPOV page about the social phenomenon of people making fun of Al Gore, he could have done so easily from the start. But that's not what he did, and it's evidently not what he wanted: he wanted to join in making fun of Al Gore himself. For a text about the social phenomenon, his draft doesn't count even as a first good-faith attempt, not even a clumsy and misguided one; it was plainly disruptive and irresponsible. And so was your decision to help writing it without taking any steps to correct the fundamental problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, isn't this point part of the learning process and exactly why people such as yourself are cautioned to not WP:BITE the newbies? Part of the feedback he received was that this article needed to be approached from the perspective of documenting a social phenomena, rather than with how he had started. Then as a result multiple editors collaborated to help make that be the case. Again, exactly how things are supposed to work. Collaboration and mutual support.

Now, as far as I am concerned the phrasing of your warning steps well over the line drawn by WP:AGF by including such verbiage as "reckless disregard for NPOV", "therefore disruptive", and "shenanigans". Have the rules changed suddenly so that WP:AGF no longer applies to admins? Please do the honorable thing, apologize for failing to WP:AGF and move on. --GoRight (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

After more than a week of intense and very active immersion in debate over NPOV, which is what Marknutley went through before starting this article, he no longer gets a newbie discount in a matter like this. That week had certainly taught him enough about "NPOV" to enable him to spend a lot of time arguing other people's editing at the COI noticeboard and other arcane places. He was perfectly aware of the demands of NPOV by the time he wrote this. He flouted the rules deliberately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fut.Perfect - back off. Crafting a user-space draft of an article is no grounds for a NPOV warning, you know that. He went along with the changes that were made, and many editors agreed there was sufficient material for a small article. Your persistence on this thread is biting and bullying. Please cease. ATren (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Chateau vue gene.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Chateau vue gene.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Again ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion on the thrust of the RFC

Mark, I think we should change the thrust of our RFC. Rather than argue for inclusion on Pachauri, I would prefer to argue for consistent standards across BLPs in the GW topic area, which means either allow criticism on proponent articles like Pachauri or removing it on skeptic articles (where barely-sourced criticisms are rampant). I actually prefer the latter now, after Alex Harvey chimed in.

Anyway, I think we have grounds for a much larger argument on consistency of standards, and specifically dealing with a handful of editors who work to enforce an inconsistent standard. Would you mind retargeting the Pachauri RFC to this more general concern? ATren (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)