User talk:DarknessShines2 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BozMo (talk | contribs) at 23:25, 29 December 2009 (→Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: ok well). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:25, 29 December 2009 by BozMo (talk | contribs) (→Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: ok well)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Please be aware of WP:3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Np i still have one edit left today then :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs)

I'd advise you to read the policy a little more carefully, especially the bit that says 3RR is not an entitlement William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

When you say in your edit take it to talk did you mean here or your talk page? I read the rule my actions are within them.

Please learn to sign your edits. Re - if you want to post on my talk page you'll need to be polite. I also suggest adopting a more formal tone with people you don't knoow and with whom you clearly disagree. Edits to the RP page should be discussed on the talk page there; this isn't a private dispute between the two of us William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was polite, i shall continue this on the rp page. I shall also undo your edits tommorrow.

You were impolite. I'll answer on the RP page. Remember the bright line is per 24h, not calendar day William M. Connolley (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed your comment from the RP page per WP:PA and/or WP:CIVIL. You're new here; please slow down or you will get some unpleasant surprises (not from me, I hasten to add) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-reminded; re the IPCC page William M. Connolley (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page IPCC Fourth Assessment Report has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Misplaced Pages. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. I removed the following link(s): http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/global-warming-and-glacier-melt-down-debate-a-tempest-in-a-teapot/ (matching the regex rule \bwordpress\.com).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Who do you work for?

Judging by your comments at WP:COIN, you believe that it is necessary to know who someone works for in order to judge their COI. Clearly you wish to edit GW articles. Therefore, you believe that it is necessary for you to tell us your employer. Please do so William M. Connolley (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually william i was refering to your past employment and was curious if you had remained in that field. Myself, i am self employed and run my own business. If you would like to know more feel free to ask :) --mark nutley (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes: what is the name of your business? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nutley plumbing and plastering Website is littleleaks.com (holding page at the moment as it got hacked and i have not had time to rebuild it) mark nutley (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. As for me, the answer is on my user page William M. Connolley (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Prolog (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Z9

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DarknessShines2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello again :) I have been looking over the rules again and i should like to point this out. ] were it clearly states Revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage. Ensure that a clear explanation for the difference in opinion is posted by you at the article talkpage. Refer to this thread in your edit summary. If possible, suggest compromises at the talkpage. Now this is what i have done in my reverts but it has been ignored. So as i have not actually broken the rules, have acted in good faith and my requests that it be taken to talk are ignored how then am i to respond? Actually forget about it, i`ll be more circumspect in the future, however i would like to know what i am meant to do when another user refuses to even consider my additions? Thank you mark nutley (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you --mark nutley (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See below. Also, there is nothing wrong with editing the unblock request template prior to review. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Edit warring is not a substitute for the normal editing process even if you believe you are right. You were warned that you may be blocked even if you do not breach 3RR. Despite the warnings, you edit warred in four articles within four days, in each case being one revert short of a 3RR violation. Your contributions indicate that you intend to continue this disruptive and very unconstructive editing pattern. As for my revert, I was reverting a sock of a banned user. Prolog (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I`m sorry, tell me how i am meant to contribute to any article if it is reverted for no just reason? I am not trying to be disruptive, i am trying to contribute. Regardless of what is said in discussion it is wilfully ignored and my contributions are reverted contrary to wp`s own rules Reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Therefore reverting is not to be undertaken without good reason This is constantly ignored by the other editors involved in this dispute. Might i ask you in your opinion, should the additional text be allowed in the article given is is well sourced and pertinant? Thank you. --mark nutley (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

DarknessShines2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

On the plus side, you were not edit warring in a vacuum, have contributed to the talkpage, and the article is locked for now anyways. On the minus side, you have been edit warring on at least two other articles in the last few days. Please wait for consensus before making controversial changes on actively edited articles. Please consider seeking outside input in the future if you are unable to reach an acceptable compromise at the talkpage. The WikiProjects listed at the top of the talkpage are generally monitored by potentially interested editors (please pick only the most relevant to avoid forking discussion), or the several noticeboards, such as WP:RSN, are monitored by people interested in more general questions. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Greatest Politacle Gaffs

The article Greatest Politacle Gaffs has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unencyclopedic. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of quotes

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Raziman T V (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Greatest Politacle Gaffs

I have nominated Greatest Politacle Gaffs, 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/Greatest Politacle Gaffs. 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. WWGB (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, i have responded on the page you linked to --mark nutley (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby

FYI an incomplete listing of his accounts is given at this link. Don't forget to click at the bottom where it says "Next 200"... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap, that guy surely has to much time on his hands lmao --mark nutley (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't give that list too much credit - look at the people who started pushing that. A lot of false positives happen in these things and I was once accused of being part of some sock network because my ISP is one of the biggest in the country, I shared ISP with another accused person, and I was able to look/quote rules quickly - competence is apparently damning evidence, but the real problem, with the global warming articles, is the obvious and unchallenged meatpuppetry that's been going on there for years.

The fact of the matter is that it is quite convenient to create "boogeymen" and much easier to push an agenda when opposing accounts are banned/silenced. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly

It is unlikely they will ever let any significant criticism in. I noticed they've moved all the criticism to a separate article and this is a common tactic, and not just with global warming, to relegate certain facts to articles that are less likely to be read. I wrote it up to put in the IPCC, they said go to the AR4 article, but they've made it so that all criticism can't be in that article.

The fact of the matter is that some people are organized behind the scenes, against wiki rules, which allows them to out-revert anyone, but if you dare to say it out loud they'll delete any reference to it, act all offended and try and get you banned. The global warming articles won't be fixed until we have another 5-20 years of cooling - some people have wasted too much of their lives (check their user histories) perpetuating a myth to ever admit that they were wrong.

I wrote up the section to see if anything has changed around here and proved that it has not - some facts are simply not welcome. I'd say the best thing you can do is to not waste too much time on them and just tell people about your experiences here and to take articles from wikipedia with a huge grain of salt. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

pachauri updates

On December 15th 2009 in an open letter, Lord Christoper Monckton, and Senator Steve Fielding, called for his removal as head of the IPCC.

This was due to his conflict of interests in being the head of the IPCC and his involvement with carbon trading company`s,

He has strongly refuted the allegations in an interview with The Times of India

References

"Open Letter". {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/pachauri_letter.pdf" ignored (help); Text "science and public policy" ignored (help)
"Lord Christopher Monckton". {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "http://en.wikipedia.org/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley" ignored (help)
"Senator Steve Fielding". {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "http://www.stevefielding.com.au/" ignored (help)
"The Telegraph". {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html" ignored (help)
Business Standered {{citation}}: Text "http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/pachauri-accusedmaking-/fortune/carbon-trading-firms/380212/" ignored (help)
"Pachauri slams charges about conflict of interest". {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pachauri-slams-charges-about-conflict-of-interest/articleshow/5360077.cms" ignored (help)

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)