User talk:DarknessShines2

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)

Decline Speedy on Owen Thomas (Playwright)

I have declined speedy deletion by WP:CSD#A7 on Owen Thomas (Playwright). This is because the article does indicate why its subject is important or significant, this is a lower standard than notability and does not need references. I have replaced with WP:BLPPROD thanks for highlighting the article though. Polargeo (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have also declined Hussein Dabbas for similar reasons. Polargeo (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please self-revert on WUWT

This will be the last time i courtesy notice you, you are supposed to keep watch on 1RR yourself. [1] is not an acceptable way around it, in fact it could be considered WP:GAMING. If you've gone off-line during this, then i'm afraid that i am going to use the enforcement board - since you we're aware that you may have broken 1RR. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually i was unsure which is why i posted. This is pathetic, i fix the article, which you should have done instead of slapping tags on it and not i have to revert the fix, how stupid is that? mark nutley (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You're also on civility parole. Do you consider the above civil? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry - but while things may be "stupid" - it is the position into which you've put yourself. Good advice here: If you are in any way uncertain about whether your actions will break your restrictions - then don't do it, and ask someone first. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

@WMC yes it is civil, care to point out how it is not? @ Kim, good advice indeed, cheers mark nutley (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

recent events

First, do not abuse the vandalism charge -- that is reserved for destructive edits with clear intent, and is almost never leveled at long term users.

Second, how is this a BLP vio? I don't think there is any argument that it is, but I'm wondering what your thinking was.

As for the edit by WMC, it was clearly wrong, maybe actionable. I'm raising it now and may file a request. ATren (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling an identifiable living person a right-wing(nut) is a blp violation it is typical of the ha hom attacks made against people skeptical of AGW. What make`s me think it is? the fact that your not meant to insult identifiable living people makes me think it is a blp violation mark nutley (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I missed the edit summary. Sorry. ATren (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfinished business

[2] William M. Connolley (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried. [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What is that diff supposed to show? mark nutley (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The wrong thing. Sorry. Try [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok mark nutley (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Miracles (Insane Clown Posse song)

I've placed a hangon tag on the article.--SKATER ^Speak. 22:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know mark nutley (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

CSD

Hey there deletion tagger - I just zapped an inappropriate article you found :) - 2/0 (cont.) 21:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yippee i made a contribution :-) mark nutley (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your message

I do not completely understand your message. I have read the link you suggested, "FAQ/Business", and believe this fulfills all the main points. I have left a response message on the discussion page. Russian Standard Corporation is a very big company, and owns one of the leading consumer brands in Russia and even exports to over 70 countries. I was told that it deserves to be in Wikipedia, and looking at your "FAQ", I believe that this is the case. This is a bit stressful for me. Can we at least proceed slowly? CrystalQuartz (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I see 2/0 has helped you out a bit, if you need some more advice feel free to ask and i`ll try and help mark nutley (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously...

My request that you justify the inclusion of that comment has gone unanswered for five days. Please self-revert until such time as you can at least be bothered to answer the question of what that trivia is doing in the article. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Guettarda, but i have been busy. I had not noticed your question. I have responded on the article talk page mark nutley (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't

Don't engage WMC on talk pages. Cla is working on RC, he will respond to WMC if there are issues. Spend your time tracking down sources. Really, you should re-read the advice Lar gave you a few days ago. No good will come of you getting into it again with WMC. ATren (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, however if it is an article i am working on i will have to talk to him such as the hockey stick article, i shall keep interaction to the minimum however, thanks mark nutley (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to respond to him on the hockey stick book article talk page. It's on my watchlist. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks guys mark nutley (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's good to see you chaps finally coming out into the open and admitting you're a team. Full points for honesty, well done Cla and ATren! William M. Connolley (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Blind reverting to ire an editor....

This revert[5] seems to be only made to ire WMC. The editcomment indicates that you haven't got a clue whether the IP was right or wrong - but that you just reverted, because it was WMC who reverted hir.

The talk-comment here[6] is not acceptable under WP:TPG. You did comment on WMC's talk[7] after that, which is the correct venue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No kim, that is the disputed text which was removed and i am trying to do an RFC on. I reverted it back in after nobody replied on the talk page with just cause for it`s removal. Please get your facts straight before making accusations. I will of course read the TPG so as not to breach protocol again. mark nutley (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, WMC's revert was at 13:02. You posted to the talk page at 14:32, were responded to at 14:35, responded to that at 14:38 and were again responded to at 14:44. You did not respond to the 14:44 statement which said, in part "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." With this lingering on the talk page, you made the following revert - "putting this back, no just reason for it`s removal has been given on talk". It appears to me that a reason for it's removal was given on talk - perhaps you didn't agree with that reason, but do you really think it's your place to state that people you are in multiple violent disagreements with across many articles are not being "just?" I think you should stop edit warring, personally. Hipocrite (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, my post 14:32, 7 April 2010 my putting back the disputed text 16:13, 14 April 2010 thats seven days mate mark nutley (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well - first of all. Your claims of 1RR violation are dodgy - since this could be categorized as a vandalism revert (not an obvious one - but the IP changed factual information to something wrong)

Secondly - you reverted in something that several editors (in fact all editors - except you) disagreed about. A restart in fact of the small edit-war on the 7th of April.

The discussions are located in Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change#Errors-but-OK as well as Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel on Climate Change#Removal_of_Section. You had no inkling of a rationale to break the consensus at that point. That you started an RfC .... Is good. But that would be for proposed new content, and you fail to provide a neutral description of what the conflict is about[8] (you still haven't provided one that adequately describes mine and WMC's objections). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the 1r claim is not about the article, it is what was done on the talk page. I put the text back in based on this [9] in which no policy reasons were given got the texts removal. Your objections were dealt with, i pointed to several links which showed the SPM had errors in it, i then asked you for a yes or no answer if there were errors in the report, your answer was There might be? Who knows. But they haven't been found then (or i haven't read about it in any reference yet) Even though i had shown links stateing there were errors in said report. BTW the revert i did was not the ip one WMC had reverted, it was your reverting of mine [10] Hope this is a bit clearer for you now mark nutley (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No Mark - my objections haven't been answered. In fact i've commented on each of your links previously - in fact i've even pointed out that the SPM says what you claim that it doesn't.... The references simply do not show what you think they do. Since i hope that you aren't misrepresenting deliberately - i must assume that it is simply because of lack of knowledge. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, how about this then the Summary of Chapter 6 on The Social Costs of Climate Change bears little resemblance to the technical chapter it is supposed to summarise. Indeed, the lead authors of that chapter disowned the Summary. and still you say, no errors? mark nutley (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, that is not about the AR4. How about at the very least look at the bloody date? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And this one the IPCC said at the weekend it would re-examine a passage about the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events such as hurricanes in its 2007 IPCC report which they have not actually done mark nutley (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not an error in the SPM, its from a chapter in the WGII report. Don't you know the difference? In fact (as i pointed out previous<beep>ly - it contains a note specifically saying that it is not in the SPM:

....However, the inaccurate passage was 'not included in the Summary for Policymakers section of the report...

Are you at all reading this? Do you make any attempt at all at understanding the references that you give? Sorry, but i am rather fed up! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim i think you misunderstand the ref, the part not included in the SPM was the glacier mistake, extreme weather events were in the SPM. Sorry i had not made myself clearer mark nutley (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK Mark. So where exactly in this quote (the only thing about extreme weather in the text) do you think that it says that there is an error - and even more - where do you see that this error is in the SPM?

As well as the glacier mistake, the IPCC said at the weekend it would re-examine a passage about the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events such as hurricanes in its 2007 IPCC report

Now i happen to remember that particular debacle - it is about a graph by Muir-Woods - and it doesn't appear in the SPM (of WGII (or for that matter any other)) - but in the supplemental material to the WGII). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

They had to re-examine it because it was an error, why would you re-examine something which was correct? And extreme weather events are discussed in the SPM, i`ll go double check if you want but the mistake is there in front of you mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

First: Not in the SPM (as you claim). Second: Claim of Error != Existence of Error. Third: assuming(Error(Specific graph)) !=> "all statements on severe weather" == wrong. Can you grok that? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"How about at the very least look at the bloody date?" Small English tip. Anyone but a Brit found using the term "bloody" incurs opprobrium and even ridicule. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 19:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought Kim was Danish? I know most of us Brits are descended from the Danes raping and pillaging Celts in the danegeld days but that makes us (part) Danish not them British... --BozMo talk 19:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I fear the Danaans even when they bear gifts.? Virgil was must have had a little Nostradamus in him. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 20:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Where do the Greeks come into this? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Those where the days :) Well - the Brits did pay us back later..... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, since most of my non-specialized literature is in British English i wouldn't be surprised, if i'm using anglo-britton-specific-expletives. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hah, we showed those buggers at clontarf who was the boss :) long live Brian Boru mark nutley (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You might find this interesting reading

The full edit block I received 2 years ago, for making two offhand remarks to WMC, administered without review or warning within a few minutes of making the statement. In lieu of current laxity, it makes for interesting reading I believe. Look at the comments particularly by "Write Stuff".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FellGleaming&oldid=207661242

Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not surprising, i`m surprised you came back to the CC related articles though, you must be a little cracked :-) I believe bozmo is a fair guy though, at least he has always been open and honest with me mark nutley (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not questioning his integrity at all; I think his decision in my case was correct. I went away and came back a better editor for it. I think the admins are simply "between Scylla and Charybdis"; prevented for political reasons from enforcing policy as evenly as they would otherwise wish. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I Write Stuff is banned user NuclearUmpf, who was banned for threatening to harass gay editors via sockpuppets. Probably not the person you want to be relying on. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I shall endeavor to never attempt the same myself! Fell Gleaming^(talk) 16:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

MN, that incident is from 2 years ago, and still nothing has changed. Ask yourself: even if you're not wrong, do you really think you'll get fair treatment if you butt heads with WMC? He's been doing this with good faith editors for years now. You really have to stop responding to it, completely. Things have improved significantly lately and his tactics have come under heavy scrutiny, but if you keep responding the way you have been, you will take the blame. I've seen it happen time and time again, and you seem to be following the script to the letter. Please, disengage. ATren (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I`m trying to, he is not making it easy :-), please note i have been polite in out most recent exchange mark nutley (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Things have improved somewhat. Two years ago, he hadn't been stripped of much of his powers. There were many arbcom cases brought for him applying bans on people he had begun an edit war with...and back then you didn't have even a shred of due process; the hammer just fell on you instantly. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 19:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I am suggesting you not respond at all. There is no deadline. Let the process play out, rather than getting caught up in the middle of it. ATren (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, editor rights may have progressed some on wiki; however, it's all about content. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion

I have removed a comment you made on that talk page. If you wish to post a similar comment that does not violate your civility parole, you are free to do so. NW (Talk) 02:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks mark nutley (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

[11] sorry remind me when I mentioned anything to do with 3RR? --BozMo talk 09:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I`m just going to copy and paste your comment here "Returning from holiday and finding all the above I have also (finally, regretably) lost patience a bit with Mark on this. I cannot believe how much time is being wasted on this page and I think we have gone far enough in proving our desire to be completely even handed. Given the time wasted above, resetting a ban when the last ban was worked around is also not enough. I support a topic ban. On Lar's comment on WMC, I think we should acknowledge WMC is expert at 3RR, aside the things he is not expert at. --BozMo talk 02:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)" My comment was of course about the highlighted bit mark nutley (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Got it (bit thick today). I was replying to a specific comment by Lar and have clarified there. --BozMo talk 13:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

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^(talk) 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 [12] 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[13]. 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)