Misplaced Pages

Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DarknessShines2 (talk | contribs) at 12:08, 15 April 2010 (→Comments By Involved Users: self revert). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:08, 15 April 2010 by DarknessShines2 (talk | contribs) (→Comments By Involved Users: self revert)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Community article probation

NOTICE: Per the probation sanctions logged here
this article is currently under a 1RR editing restriction.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Good articlesIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 31, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconInternational relations: United Nations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEnvironment: Climate change
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

Template:Histinfo


Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

IPCC Politico-Scientific?

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body" - but also "The IPCC Panel is composed of representatives appointed by governments and organizations." Is it reasonable to amend the first statement to take this political aspect into account? Or is the "intergovernmental" adjective sufficient? Washi (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Poor reference

I haven't read much of this WP article (it looks to need some pruning at a glance) but in passing I note this reference McKibben, Bill (March 15, 2007). "Warning on Warming". The New York Review of Books (nybooks.com) 54 (4): 18. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19981. Retrieved 2010-02-21 is a bit trashy. The fact that the author innumerately uses the expression "lowest common denominator findings" when he means "findings divided by the lowest common denominator" or "highest common factor findings" is itself deeply unimpressive (lowest common denominator findings would be big and get bigger for each additional party included) and our decision to repeat the error as the only citation from the review is even sadder. Do we have something similar we could cite which was less erroneous? --BozMo talk 10:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I took this out as an obviously deceptive edit comment. Nor is it clearly reasonable to add it here under an accurate comment William M. Connolley (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain exactly how it is an "obviously deceptive edit comment", and give an example of how it could have been phrased differently? Jprw (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Because you said adding ref to criticism section when it wasn't. Is that really so hard to see? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you suggest an acceptable alternative wording? Jprw (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the obvious would be "add a pile of contentious criticism with no attempt at consensus". So, now you have (albeit only implicitly) admitted that your summary was misleading, how about apologising for it? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"So, now you have (albeit only implicitly) admitted that your summary was misleading, how about apologising for it?" No, I won't apologise for making a possibly too vague or short edit summary. But how about you apologise for making such a ridiculous and unjustified request, as well as succumming so easily and quickly to violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPOV? Jprw (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Jprw, I object to the edit on BLP grounds. Unless that specific behavior by Paucheri has been noted in a number of RS, I don't think it should be included. In addition, I'm disappointed with WMC's combative way of presenting his objection to the edit. Cla68 (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive comment. I see that there may be BLP issues that I didn't properly take into account and in view of these I'll remove it. In the meantime, if other RS appear on this specific point we may want to consider reincluding it. As an aside, the current reference to Paucheri in the article looks out of place. Jprw (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is nice that you've finally done the right thing. It is regrettable that you only did so once "your side" pointed out your error William M. Connolley (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
WMC, please don't make personal comments like this. It could be interpreted as baiting and by any measure is inappropriate for collaborative and cooperative discussions on article content. Cla68 (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic to say the least that WMC quotes this at the top of his page:

"To speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with decency and humility, is to honour him; as signs of fear to offend. To speak to him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly, impudently is to dishonour. Leviathan, X."

Perhaps it is intended as some kind of parody. Jprw (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this have any place here? Please refactor/delete and remove this comment as well, when you've done so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I will do so after you acknowledge that WMC's behaviour above was inappropriate and completely unconstructive to the WP editing process, and in violation of numerous WP principles. Jprw (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that these talk-pages are under probation - right? Now be good and remove all of this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

When I see evidence that you are capable of applying the same high standards to WMC (whose antagonistic attitude and chronic AGF lapses directly led to this) as to myself I will with pleasure remove it. In the meantime, his hypocrisy needs exposing and his flagrant, arrogant and continual circumvention of various WP fundamental principles needs drawing attention to. Jprw (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No reason to bicker about these kinds of things here. We just note our initial concerns about the behavior of others on this talk page, then take further discussion of it up on their user account talk pages or at the probation enforcement page. Cla68 (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
May i remind both of you about this. Now please refactor everything that isn't directly related to the article - and that includes this comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Who are you talking to? Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Voodoo science

I'm seeing a lot of references to Paucheri's "Voodoo science" remark about the glacier prediction. For example, see here. There seems to be a preponderance of refs available to justify a mention -- but perhaps it would fit better on his page, which also doesn't appear to mention it. Jprw (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't use the link you've provided, since it is factually incorrect. But yes, it would be better at RKP first William M. Connolley (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It's also a blog, though Monbiot's suggestion of November 2009 for the alleged remark ties in with some research I did on the subject, showing it had more to do with politics in India, and was a bit more complex than you might suppose. Beware of the "Crisis. What crisis?" effect where newspapers make up statements that enter folklore as though they were a verbatim quote. . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Please make a suggestion on how you think it should be phrased. Cla68 (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It shouldn't be; it is based on an error. What text do you want to see included? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

North African Agriculture

There doesn't seem to be any mention in the criticism section regarding the 50% drop in N. African agriculture by 2020 that seems to be dubious at best. The Watson criticism referring to multiple errors really ought to be preceded by, well, multiple errors, no? TMLutas (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Add quote from Guardian to Hockey Stick section?

I recently added this sentence to the end of this section of our article:

In 2010, glaciologist Kurt Cuffey of the University of California at Berkeley, a member of the US National Research Council panel that reviewed the Hockey stick controversy, criticized the way the graph had been used by the IPCC: "I think that sent a very misleading message about how resolved this part of the scientific research was." Source: Climate change debate overheated after sceptic grasped 'hockey stick', Guardian series on 'Climate wars'

Editor KD Peterson reverted, commenting: "Cherry-pick from an article with another focus. I'm also not sure that its a 2010 comment, and not one from the NAS review time."

Kim, this is an impeccably-sourced, topical and encyclopedic quote from a scientist-player. I'm confused by your "cherry-pick" comment: this Guardian article's subject is the HS controversy. If you think we should drop the 2010 date, that 's fine with me -- the Guardian article isn't clear as to when he said this. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal gives excessive detail in this brief summary, and undue weight to the musings of one commentator on the extent to which the graph was used. The initial research was indeed cutting edge, but as the same article shows it has stood up remarkably well to a decade of political criticism and further scientific research. . . dave souza, talk 08:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Dave, we could shorten this, but please note that this particular section is "Emphasis of the "hockey stick" graph" in the context of criticism of the IPCC. The published opinion of an NRC panel member that the IPCC misused the graph, would seem to have ample WP:weight. I agree with Kim that it would be nice to know the date of the quote. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Its not a summary of the sub-article is it? That is what that section is... And the quote is cherry-picked not from an article about the NAS panels conclusions, but from one about Michael Mann. The journalist of course picked it from the Nature article Bromfrey(2006) "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph". That particular article is of course already part of Hockey stick controversy.
But if we are going to have a quote (which we shouldn't, since a) this is a summary b) it would be undue weight) then i think it would be rather better with another quote from the Nature article:
Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. "This study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed,” he says, adding that he “would not be embarrassed” to have been involved in the work.
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit coflict) Cuffey's remarks, it turns out, were from a press conference at the release of the 2006 NRC/NAS report, and were widely reported at that time: the Cuffey quote ran in Nature's news report, now behind a paywall, and it appears that Cuffey's was the criticism in Nature's title, "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph - But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used." I think this is the proper place for Cuffey's full remarks, as they are specific to how the IPCC used the HS graph. This particular section is "Emphasis of the "hockey stick" graph" in the context of criticism of the IPCC. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Except of of course that it isn't a good summary from the Nature article. North's quote (in the same Nature article) is quite a bit more to that point:
“No individual paper tells the whole story,” agrees North. “It’s very dangerous to pull one fresh paper out from the literature.”
And No. You cannot just summarize the parts of an article that reflects a specific POV - you have to weight it appropriately. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(reply to KDP) Kim, do you have a link to a copy of the Brumfiel Nature article? Or a copy you could email? pdtillmanATgmailDOTcom
Maybe you're right that this belongs over there. But it is specific to this topic, and it does look like Nature led with Cuffey, so we should too. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
How is you seem to find WP:SUMMARY so difficult to follow? This is the main article, and undue weight to minor criticisms is inappropriate. . . dave souza, talk 22:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
From what I have read, the IPCC has been criticized for, in critics' opinions, excessive weight given to the hockey stick graph. I know of at least two other sources besides the Guardian, which I can list if requested. I think the question here is, how should this be phrased in the article? So, could you all that don't like the reliable, sourced quote from the Berkeley scientist suggest an alternative? Please collaborate, cooperate, and compromise. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there has been rather a lot of critique - that is the reason why we have an article on that: Hockey stick controversy. What is presented here is a summary of that article (and it is already phrased in this article). It is not supposed to be various cherry-picks of quotes and whatnot. I don't have anything against the quote - except that it is WP:UNDUE.... to be more specific: If it is not important (weighty) enough to be mentioned in the article that specifically is about the controversy - then its not important enough to mention here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I believe I agree with at least part of what you're saying. The Hockey Stick controversy article should be improved and complete first, if necessary, and then a summary of that article can be worked on here, as appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So, shall we move this discussion to that page? Consensus seems to be that we should make that the master article, and this a summary.

The NRC/NAS sections do seem to be rather a mess. I've been doing a little cleanup, but more is needed, and it looks like Cuffey got left out. Kim, does Cuffey lead the criticism section in the Brumfiel Nature article?

Does anyone have a working link to that article? Or a copy you could email? (pdtillmanATgmailDOTcom) Nature's news report, the primary ref, is now behind a paywall. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the author and title information for that article and I'll look for it in Infotrac. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Complete cite is here. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is this quote right after headline title - IPCC criticism.

Obviously it's there as a result of biased editing. It's not a section on generally accepted view on Global Warming. It's on criticism.

Deleted the entire quote.

Here it is for the record:

The mainstream scientific view is that unless we take drastic measures climate changes our own activities have set in motion over the past 150 years will, within a comparatively short time, threaten the survival of the human race. It is hard to persuade people of the need to act unselfishly now so that future generations in a world that we will never know may survive. Science does not deal in certainties. The best it can do is convince us on the basis of strong probabilities, and that depends on trust. So the mishandling of data on climate change by the IPCC is particularly damaging. It becomes difficult to resist the blandishments of the sceptics if a purportedly scientific document cannot be wholly relied on.

— Lisa Jardine, A Point Of View, BBC Radio 4, 5 February 2010

– — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.212.200 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point, the phrasing assumes "mishandling of data on climate change" and the purportedly important source of the statement, Lisa Jardine, has no evident expertise on the subject. I've replaced by info trom the detailed sub-article on the subject, which at least shows the scientific consensus view on such errors. . . dave souza, talk 08:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
By the way, do we have a reliable source for this alleged comment? The ellipses rather suggest quote mining. . . dave souza, talk 08:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Errors-but-OK

I removed the Summary-type para: the stuff about errors-but-OK is wrong, I think: the 2035 stuff which was the most "exciting" wasn't even in the SPM. Nor is there any evidence that the SPM is used mostly for the making of policy William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats what the Summary For Policy Makers is for, making policy. There are multipile errors in the ar4 report and that stuff you removed was well sourced, you had to reason to remove it, please self revert mark nutley (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I have to go out so have reverted you, we can discuss it later mark nutley (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was a bit baffled by that removal as well, Will. What's the dealeo, yo?--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
First there isn't: Multiple errors - there is quite a small number of errors - its below 5. In a report that contains thousands of facts.
Second: All of the errors have been in the WGII report.
Third: None of the errors are in the SPM's.
All in all - good revert - which i've redone. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
None of what you have said is accurate kim, Summary for policy makers mistakes extinction sea-level rise re-examine a passage about the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events such as hurricanes why some people seem to find it nessacary to hide any mistakes made by the ipcc is beyond me, please self revert mark nutley (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
These are not in any of the SPM's Mark. And none of your references show this (and if they did - they would be demonstratively wrong) - so i'm quite confused as to why you present them here. In fact Revkin points out that it wasn't in the SPM: "At the same time, it’s clear that senior authors of the panel’s most visible products, its summaries for policymakers, had little confidence in this finding". The Age specifically notes: "However, the inaccurate passage was not included in the Summary for Policymakers section of the report, which forms the basis of government responses to climate change."
Underestimating sea-level rise - is in the SPM. Try to read it - its the cave-at about "ice dynamics". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
No kim this is one of the central predictions of IPCC, prominently discussed in the Summary for Policy Makers Do not even try to say there are no errors in the SPM, when it is reliably sourced that there are indeed mistakes in it mark nutley (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Please read the AR4 SPM page 5-7. Yes, the IPCC underestimates contributions to sea-level from ice-dynamics - and it is specifically noted within the SPM ("For example, if this contribution were to grow linearly with global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios shown in Table SPM.3 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m. Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise.").
Yes, sea-levels have risen faster than estimated - and again this is noted in the SPM ("Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longerterm trend is unclear.") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Kim yes or no, are there errors in the SPM? mark nutley (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
There might be? Who knows. But they haven't been found then (or i haven't read about it in any reference yet). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)One final note: Please read up on the topic. The IPCC (or the models) does not provide predictions, there is a reason that it is called projections. Its a common mistake though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I took it out again, since none of the above, or below, addresses the problems with it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Section

The following text was removed without consensus for no reason than wp:idontlikeit

The summary reports (i.e. Summary for Policymakers), which draw the most media attention, include review by participating governments in addition to scientific review. The reports have been criticized for containing several errors. Still, it has been generally acknowledged that the mistakes are "small", and do not significantly diminish the reports' usefulness as background material for policy making.

It has been argued by WMC and KDP that the summary for policy makers has no errors in it. This is however blatantly absurd.

Given it is obvious that the SPM has errors in it then i seek consensus to reinsert the removed text mark nutley (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why you cannot continue this discussion under the existing section header? And while we are at it, can you please stop citing unreliable sources like an editorial? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
To keep it tidy, the sources all fall under wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
No, they do not. The WSJ is usually a RS, but the article is an attributed opinion piece (as easily recognizable by the facts that it is published in OPINION JOURNAL in the section OPINION EUROPE, that the author is identified as "an editorial page writer", and that the article is followed by the link "MORE IN OPINION). As you either know or at least should know, opinion pieces and editorials are only reliable for the opinion of the author, not for facts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Request For Comment

{{rfctag|sci}} The following text was removed without consensus

"The summary reports (i.e. Summary for Policymakers), which draw the most media attention, include review by participating governments in addition to scientific review. The reports have been criticized for containing several errors. Still, it has been generally acknowledged that the mistakes are "small", and do not significantly diminish the reports' usefulness as background material for policy making."

It has been argued by WMC and KDP that the summary for policy makers has no errors in it. However i believe the following links show the SPM has mistakes in it

Given the above links show it has errors in it then i seek consensus to reinsert the removed text

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference principles was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8561050.stm
  3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8561050.stm

Comments By Uninvolved Users

Comments By Involved Users

  • The RFC introduction is supposed to be phrased in neutral terms. If the RFC author then wants their opinion to be known, they should then do so separately down here somewhere. Also, I don't see the exact text in question listed here. Before I vote, I need to know exactly what you want the article to say or what the text was which was removed. Nevertheless, I thought it was widely accepted that the IPCC's summary reports were controversial because they differed so significantly from the actual reports that they purported to summarize. Cla68 (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I have made a stab at a more neutral wording, i want the text which was removed to be replaced as it is obvious from the links provided that mistakes are in the SPM and to remove text saying this is in my view not right mark nutley (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I think the paragraph in question is ok, but could be better. It's not that simple or necessarily accurate that the summary reports contain "a few errors". The main criticism of the summary reports, from what I've read, is that they gloss over dissenting opinions and exaggerate or inflate the worst case scenarios. Critics charge that this is to garner better media, government, and public notice. From what I understand, this is why some scientists, like Paul Reiter, asked to be removed as contributors to the IPCC's reports. Cla68 (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Given it is obvious that the SPM has errors in cannot possibly be considered neutral William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Hmm. Mark puts up a WSJ opinion piece, a Newsweek rehash of Rahmstorf's comment on sea level projections proving to be on the low side (not an "error") and a NYT opinion piece on various phrasings of estimate risks of extinctions of species in the SPS. Calling this "several errors" looks very misleading, giving undue weight to relatively minor points. . . dave souza, talk 11:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Dave, three lines is not undue weight in this article by a long shot. And as this is about the SPM and not the science then an opinion piece is a perfectly valid ref for what is essentialy a political document mark nutley (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality of this RFC remains "not even close". MN is far too close to this to write it without bias. "The following text was removed without consensus" is unacceptable as an intro.

I suggest that someone like Cla - who for all his faults at least has some clue about writing without bias, and has a fair idea of what MN really means - goes in and rewrites the thing. Until that is done this fails the criterion for RFC listing; I've nowikied the tag ni the interim William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully request you do not edit my posts. I have changed the text per your previous suggestion. The disputed text was removed without consensus and i do not see how the truth of this matter is not neutral mark nutley (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an RFC, not a "post". You do not have freedom to do as you wish here William M. Connolley (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
You have broken your 1r restriction and you are also not meant to alter another editors text on talk pages per your probation, please self revert thank you mark nutley (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Categories: