Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DarknessShines2 (talk | contribs) at 16:57, 26 April 2010 (→FYI: end of). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible

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)

Arbcom

Hi Mark, if you get a moment, could you explain to me the process for filing an arbcom complaint against an administrator? Thanks. Fell Gleaming 03:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry man i have no idea. I suppose go to the arbcom board? mark nutley (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

On that note, and in response to you comment on KCs page, you need to take up your difficulty with this edit at the appropriate venue.

Obviously KC is not interested, so the next step would be the CC probation page. However there you will find that the small group of participating admins have reached the consensus that the person you are having problems with is worth more to the project than most editors, and you are unlikely to have your complaint addressed.

The consensus seems to be that the problems with this editor are outweighed by their encyclopedic contribution. However in the case of your posted diff you are really just talking about vandalism, adding unsourced slurs to lower the tone of a BLP, so the part about adding encyclopedic content does not apply.

If I were you I would follow FGs route to a higher authority. The CC probation is not a community sanction, it was envisaged and enacted by a small group of admins who have succeeded in isolating CC articles in order to retain control over contributors, and it's authority is open to question given the participating admins consensus to allow certain individuals to continually work against the spirit that the CC probation was supposed to be helping with. Weakopedia (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am banned from bringing enforcement requests against the editor in question. Of any sort. I have been told quite simply, bend over and take it :) mark nutley (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That the CC probation team would enact such a ban without monitoring the behaviour of the editor in question really shows how futile that whole system is. You can't complain no matter what they do, and that gives them the ability to act as they wish. Right now it is the CC probation system and those that participate in it that is failing the encyclopedia. Weakopedia (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not acceptable...

You cannot - and i will repeat this ... cannot use opinion articles as a reference for factual information - you can only use such to state the opinion of the writer. You have been notified several times that Matt Ridley's article in the Spectator isn't a reliable source for such information - yet you repeat this here. Don't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Then attribute it instead of reverting, christ almighty, you slap tags all over an article and when i put in the refs you demand you remove them. Ridleys article is perfectly reliable in the way it has been used mark nutley (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason for the tags. Personal information about BLP's must be rigorously sourced. Even with attribution to Ridley - it wouldn't be. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not acceptable

Comments on a blog are not reliable sources. I could right now go to real climate and write a comment ostensibly from Al Gore saying "I realize now that everything I said about Climate Change is wrong." That's not a reliable source for anything, at all. Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well you could try, i very much doubt your comment would ever appear though as RC moderate all comments. Given Judith Curry is a notable person in the field using her comments from there seemed fine to me, I do of course have another source for said comments. Of course not i have to wait 24 hours before redoing it don`t i. For a man who has quit the CC related articles you are not doing a good job of kicking the habit mark nutley (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, it's really not. If you can get anyone not involved in the CC articles at all to come to my talk page and tell me it's a reliable source, I'll add it back in myself. If you revert war to add it back in, of course, I'll just go to GSCC and ask that you be prevented from further disrupting things. I've tried to get away from the CC articles, but, like I said, I was reverting SciBaby, and then I saw Fel Gleaming and his questionable use of sources, so somehow my watchlist keeps growing. If only you could police people who agree with you to stop blatently violating rules, you'd be rid of me. Your loss, I guess! Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I`m not going to edit war at all. And i have removed a lot of unreliable sources from the CC related articles remember? Like i said i have another source which covers her comments so i don`t see this as an issue. How do you know when an editor is scibaby? Some of the ones i have seen are just a few words, like the addition of The Hockey Stick Illusion to the HS controversy article. I mean how the heck did you know? I don`t want to be rid of you btw, i reckon your a fair editor mark nutley (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"Comments on a blog are not reliable sources." -- Odd I've never seen Hypocrite complain about pro-warming cites to the RealClimate blog. I suppose consistency is too much to ask for. Fell Gleaming 21:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a comment on the blog, not a blog posting, my mistake mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - throwing yourself into an editwar....

Haven't you still got a restriction on editwarring? Yes - i know that you are under 1RR, but RR's are not entitlements. Since you haven't brought anything to the table at DeSmogBlog, and in fact are reverting against consensus (by my count roughly 5 vs. 2 (includes you))... then it doesn't look good. The material btw. may be well-sourced, but completely unreliable - and thus has no value beyond being disinformation --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I assume you mean the alexa ranking when you say disinformation, which btw is a pov, your meant to leave that at the door, not bring it to the table.. I was refering to the Solomon refs which WMC had removed which were reliably sourced. I am unsure how you think my reverting back in well sourced criticisms are edit warring, shall we have a whitewashed article with no crits at all? Also, consensus has not been reached with regards to alexa, therefore it should not have been removed mark nutley (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No Mark, that it is basically disinformation is not POV. When you give information that seems to have content - but hasn't, and which has a high chance of being wrong - then it is disinformation...... And i can see that you are (correctly) stating the same view to Hipocrite at Talk:Bishop Hill (blog)#Alexia... Which is rather strange, since it is the diametrically opposite position of the one you have at Talk:DeSmogBlog. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You like hippocrite are incorrect. I am saying that alexia does not count subdomains effectively, as i showed on the Bishop Hill talk page. Desmogblog is not a subdomain, it is a domain. However i have been reading up further on alexia, it is a junk way of assessing a sites stats, visitors need to have the alexia toolbar installed, a site could get 100k hits and it would not show on alexia if none of the visitors had this toolbar installed. So unless Desmogblog has had the Alexia code embedded into their index.php to count for them, then it is in fact a waste of time, The same issue arises with quantcast, unless you have their code embedded into your index file, it ain`t gonna count your site. And as no site owner will (i would hope) advertise the fact that these exploitable java scripts are running on their sites then quite simply Alexia and Quantcast are good for nothing mark nutley (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you should note your findings to Cla and ATren - because that is exactly what i've been saying all the time. And you should have self-reverted when you realized that you were in error. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I was about to revert as well, so it's 5-3. But remember, consensus is not a vote. ;-) Mark, I suggest you ignore this; one revert is fine. I believe WMC is on 1RR as well, right Kim? (yes, in fact, he is) So have you warned him too? ATren (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

ATren, that is very bad advice. Mark is basically still a newbie (still learning) - and if he ends up getting sanctioned at some point because he is following that advice - will you then follow troop and share the sanctions? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, 1 revert is not a violation. If it is, then bring it to the enforcement board, but realize that WMC is under the exact same restriction and took the exact same action on the exact same page, so I fully expect you to report both; and if you include only MN, I will amend the request to ask that any sanction be applied equally to both (which, BTW, should be nothing because neither violated his restriction). ATren (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually ATren you should know better. When there is already an edit-war in full swing - then your revert can be counted as edit-warring - neither 1RR or 3RR are entitlements. Finally if you look over my history here on WP - i very very very seldom report anyone (or run yelling to an admin as many others) - you will have to have stepped over the line quite a lot of times before that happens. That doesn't mean that others won't do it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, if you had warned both sides equally, and if there weren't such snarkiness in your message, perhaps I would have responded differently. But the way you presented it ("Since you haven't brought anything to the table..") seemed overly aggressive, and I don't think Mark needs to respond to that kind of warning. ATren (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No thanks, really.

I fail to see a similar post at User_talk:FellGleaming, so why would I? Because I'm right, but you are on his side? Or because his insults are to easily spotted to count? Lars T. (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen him insult anybody like you have there, in fact i have not seen any posts were he insults anyone, do you refuse to remove your attack? mark nutley (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Don't be a prat", to use his words. Lars T. (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a diff? And will you remove your PA? mark nutley (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Intellectual dishonesty (or simple disability to use the find function of a browser) duly noted. Lars T. (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Get real, have you seen how many edits Fell has made over the last few days? You are the one who saw the remark, you must have a vague idea were it is? mark nutley (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Control-F or Command-F — Don't be a prat. Lars T. (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC

I've nowiki'd your RFC, for the same reasons as before: you can't write these things neutrally. Experience suggests that you won't be able to see this even when it is pointed out to you, so I suggest you find someone on "your side" (not that there are sides, of course) to help you reword it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, look at how I wrote this RfC. It probably isn't perfect, but I strove to take no sides in the RfC heading itself. I started off with the basic question, explained the background and scope of the disagreement, and what was on the table to resolve the issue. Cla68 (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying one line would suffice? To do that then how am i to present the refs showing this is a factual account and not fringe? Look, as it stands the pov tag will not be allowed to be removed until certain editors have forced their POV into the article, thats not on. mark nutley (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

One line to state the core issue, then a short paragraph under that in the "Discussion" section which explains in greater detail, without taking a side, that includes all the links and diffs needed to help unfamiliar editors make a decision. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your revert of my nowiki'ing was a mistake; it is a shame that Cla won't tell you so. But I came here to tell you not to comment in the section marked Comments from uninvolved users unless you want to discredit your RFC yet further William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No it was not, your mistake was yet again interrupting this process, If a question is asked of the rfc then of course i have to comment in that section. You have come here to tell me nothing as you have already destroyed the process again mark nutley (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You've destroyed your RFC, not me; just as you did the last one. You should not have moved my comment from the top section - plenty of other RFC's have this. It appears that you cannot cope if the top section is not framed exclusively as you want it, and your obvious bias not pointed out. Really, you should take advice on this, and listen to it, *before* you file these things. And your removal of my comment is in rather stark contrast to *your* commenting in a section specifically marked as for uninvolved users William M. Connolley (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You are in error, your comment should have gone into the area for uninvolved editors, whic his were i moved it to. My comments were in direct response to questions about the rfc, now do go away there`s a good lad mark nutley (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Just something to note for future RFC's. This line "There are several refs to back the claim that this is a full and factual account of the history of the hockey stick." alone would go against NPOV. It's setting the stage for a particular viewpoint - "full and factual". Essentially, it's asking "Am I right, or am I right?". That's going to put people on the defensive that might disagree with you - you've called them wrong right from the start after all.

I agree with you that, when a question is asked by an uninvolved editor, you probably should respond if it's process, not view related. If an editor is espressing their view, I'm not sure it's helpful for you to respond to their points, but expect nobody else to respond to your point. That's not really fair. Respond to process questions ("Should have also asked if the POV tag is correct"), but if it's their view, I'd stay in the involved section. If you jump all over any outside editor that expresses a view counter to yours, what does that say to a future uninvolved editor? Ravensfire (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, it may however prove pointless as some editors seem to want to merge the book article in with two other articles, i am unsure on how to deal with this. The book and this article are more than notable to have their own articles, so if his blog is not i don`t see how all three should be merged into one, it will trivialize and minimize both the book and Montford mark nutley (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything on the talk pages for Montford or the book about a merge. It seems he's quoted at least occasionally by various media, which is a plus. If you can find something about him being a commentator for print/televised media, that would strengthen the case. I don't think the blog is notable enough for a seperate article, but I would create a section on his article for the blog, and move related parts of the article there.

I'd also suggest a slight reorg of the article. Have three sections under climate change advocacy - book, media, blog- in that order. He's most notable for the book, so lead with that. The other two are interchangeble. You've got some stuff in Personal related to the book and the blog - move 'em out of there.

For the rest - it's a jungle out there. You've made some mistakes, and there are people on both sides who will jump all over any small mistake. Rather than be defensive, see if there's some validity to the mistake and if so, correct it and thank the person. You're both here to create something, right? So if they spot a mistake of yours, aren't they doing you a favor by making sure the material you put out is the best possible? If you think they're wrong, explain why. (And yes, both sides can use the same advice) The area is such a cesspool that I have no doubt that many editors won't touch it. I'm one of them. The recent approach of civil disagreement/civil POV by several editors will, ultimately, be successful if they can get under the skin of the other side. On top of that, people will take your words with greater weight when you are the noble editor. Ravensfire (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes look pretty good. I'm going make some minor tweaks/MOS changes, but not too bad. Ravensfire (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no deadline

Mark, I can't help much with the RFC itself (I've not done that process very much, and not in a long time) but might I suggest again that you take your time and be patient? If the POV tag stays up for a week or a month, who cares? Work it through patiently on talk, and eventually it will come down, especially with people like Cla helping out. You always seem to be in a rush to fix such things, and your zeal actually seems to make it worse -- notice that several responders to the RFC weren't even exactly sure what you were requesting, and if you keep doing that, you'll get a reputation for crying "wolf". Even if you believe others are being tendentious and obstructionist, you have to be patient and let the process play out, or it will blow up in your face. When carrying a full load of dynamite in a rickety old truck, you don't take the unpaved side road even if it's half the distance. ;-)

And I'd also suggest you compose a draft of an RFC in your userspace, and seek outside input before you post it to the talk page. Once it's posted, it's too late for others to help. ATren (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Already doing it mate, i know there is no rush, but the simple fact is the pov tag should not have been put on that article. There are no crits of the book, simple fact. What we now have are editors trying to insert a POV to make the book appear fringe and not accurate. mark nutley (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, the POV tag is probably spurious, but you still have to let it play out. Remember how long the Climategate article had a POV tag? That's just the way it works while the conflict plays out. ATren (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember this too, when readers see the POV tag on an article, more of them will click over to the talk page than usually do to see what is going on. I think what they see there will be very educational about how the AGW topic is treated in Misplaced Pages. Some of them might even decide to get involved. Cla68 (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Even better (or worse?) some of them may decide to read the book for themselves... --BozMo talk 12:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Bozmo it would be good if they did, at least for andrews wallet :)

Unfortunately no library in Denmark carries this book (university,highschool or public), so i have had to make do with searching and reading it via Google books. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You can always order it via Amazon.com or The Book Depository :-) mark nutley (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Since i have a rather extremely long list of more important books that i must/will/should buy, this one simply doesn't have the capability of reaching a spot where it could come on the budget. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please refactor...

This is certainly not an OK comment. I don't know such a thing, in fact i disagree vehemently (and have since before you even created the articles - see my comments on it at ATren's talk). You are not only assuming bad faith - you are accusing people of it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I am most certainly not assuming bad faith. If the book was not notable then it would have gone to afd. If Montford was not notable he would already be gone under the new blp rules. That is what i meant when i said you know it. If they were not notable enough for there own articles the ywould already have been deleted. It is you who are assuming bad faith here, not i mark nutley (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

By stating that our position is "Bollocks and you know it" - you are accusing of us bad faith. I (as i said above) certainly don't "know it". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Judith Curry

Can I recommend that you read my last post at the talk page one more time? Especially the last sentence. I actually agreed with you that the fact that she engages with skeptics is notable :) Thepm (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why the removal of her posts and links on sceptic blogs? As the article now stands it looks like she wagged her finger over at real climate and that`s about it. I`m not happy with the wholesale removal of reliably sourced material which is a notable moment in her life mark nutley (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I didn't remove it, but I can understand why WMC did. It makes the same point over and over. Add a sentence noting that she's posted at WUWT or that she's engaged with skeptics or something like that. I think that's all the addition we need on that.

I'll add that you should also try to add some stuff unrelated to climategate. She's been in academia for 20 years and her article sounds like the only thing she's ever done is slag off at the climategate crew. That's what WMC seems to be so cranky about. Thepm (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ask the average guy who she is, they will not know her from her academic career, the ywill know her for her responses to climatgate and her willingness to talk to sceptics. If wmc felt it was unbalanced he should have added to the article, not gut it. mark nutley (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion should be on the article talk page, not here, if you want others to contribute or read. But if you're just talking amongst yourselves, fine William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We're just chatting. MN was about to serve tea and biscuits. Want some? Thepm (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

MN - please *read* the tags you use. The one you used says "The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page". There is no discussion from you on the talk page justifying that tag. Please add some, instead of wasting your time whingeing about you getting the wrong tag William M. Connolley (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Given you have replied in the section were this is being discussed what are you waffling on about? mark nutley (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You've got not-very-long to redact that William M. Connolley (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Done as requested mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Far too close to an WP:NPA violation for someone on civility parole. Guettarda (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Tell me something Guettarda, am i the only one here on a civility parole? Why are you not mentioning these to WMC? mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"But he did it too" is not a defence. Guettarda (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify "are you incapable" is a direct comment on the person's intellectual ability and thus a comment on the person. The comments you linked to a comments about your editing behaviour. The latter is acceptable, the former is a violation of our policy on personal attacks. To violate that policy while under civility parole is a serious problem. Guettarda (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish, it is a straight question to someone who is studiously avoiding a question put to them, it is not a comment on a persons intellect at all, and i am unsure how you could even reach such a conclusion mark nutley (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Incapable of giving an answer"? That sounds to me like a comment on their cognitive abilities. Guettarda (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No saying "you are incapable" would be a comment on their cognitive abilities "Are you incapable" is a question mark nutley (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No - "are you incapable" is a rhetorical question, a comment phrased as a question, along the lines of "are you stupid?". "Are you able to answer a question" would still be a personal attack though, since the only way the answer could be "no" would be if there was serious mental impairment. It's not like asking "can you place a ball with a cricket bat" or "can you place the red ball in the corner pocket", since these are specific skills and there's no shame in answering "no". If you ask "can you answer a question?" you only expect "no" if the person is seriously impaired. So asking the question is the same as asking "are you cognitively or intellectually impaired". And note, you phrased it as a rhetorical question - in other words, you weren't asking, you were accusing. Guettarda (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a straight question "Are you able to answer a question" why yes, yes i can. "Are you able to answer a question" well no, i don`t actually have an answer. There you go, how hard is that question to answer, it`s not is it. Now be a good lad and do bugger off mark nutley (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not commenting on the rest of them, but is not even remotely a personal attack - in fact, it's just plain really good advice. Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Implying i am unable to write an RFC without aid is insulting mark nutley (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

MN: you've had not one but *two* RFC's aborted for non-neutrality (and it wasn't just me that thought that - even LHVU thought so too. In fact *everyone* except you thought so). So you have a proven track record of writing non-neutral RFC's, *and* being unable to see that they aren't neutral. So you need someone to check the next one before you trip up again. Stating (not implying) that you are unable to do this is merely to state the obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Without comment on the facts regarding your inability to write a neutral RFC, best practices for writing an RFC are either to reach a consensus on what exactly to ask, to write the RFC for the enemy, or at the very least, to have a neutral party help you write the rfc. It's just good advice. Take it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case, WMC is right about the RFC. He didn't say you are incapable - those are your words - but it's a strong suggestion to ask someone else to review the RFC before you post it. That's actually just good advice, and you got the same from Hipocrite. Find someone that would argue the opposite side from you and work with them to get a neutral RFC statement. You've had two shot down for not conforming to the generally accepted standards of WP. That suggests that what you consider neutral and what the WP community considers neutral aren't the same. Think about that. Ravensfire (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)