User talk:DarknessShines2

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You might be interested in this

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

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

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

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

Would either of you like to help out on this article i am working when you have a moment feel free to do so btw [[[1]]]

= IPCC

Unlike WMC who tried to cut middle ground that [2] was a straight revert without trying to improve the text. As such in my view it qualifies for a block under the probation terms, which as you know what you are doing would be at least 48 hours. I guess it is likely that you will get reported for it. I am not going to block you but I am going to bed. I suggest you consider self reverting and trying to do an edit which again finds middle grounds not straight reverting. --BozMo talk 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorry i got angry.

I know it's hard to keep a cool head during a dispute. I really appreciate your self-revert and I hope we can work together to reach a revision we can all accept. --TS 00:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised at you, BozMo, his edit did NOT violate the very terms that you yourself indicated were in play. His edit did NOT violate WP:1RR so why are you indicating that his edit qualified as a block under the probation? I think MN is good to be cautious until we get such things worked out, but I want to understand the specifics of your reasoning. Can you support your position based on the text of the probation sanctions or WP:1RR? --GoRight (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did not break Ryan's 1RR, obviously but I was concerned about this prohibition [3]. I thought Mark's edit, which was an exact revert of someone else's edit, would count as edit warring until Puritanical rules. I think this prohibition is probably why no one has reverted your latest edits GoRight. The talk page is a horrid mess with lots of people talking cross purpose but I think we have to work with it. --BozMo talk 08:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when editing this article. You are discussing productively and make some good points at the talkpage (although I agree that the edit below is a bit beyond the pale), but you might be in danger of slipping into edit war territory. Please just wait for an identifiable consensus at the talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say i have been discussing productively and yes i feel i have, however go take another look, once it appears i am making headway the other guys just stop discussing and go ahead and make the changes they want. If they will not reply to my arguments then what am i to do? It is very frustrating when my points are just brushed aside and the same crap continues. I ask again, what am i meant to do? Also as i asked WMC what is wrong with what i wrote? Given it`s true :)

Also WMC does not wait for consensus, he just does what he wants. mark nutley (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

You need to refactor this [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might i ask why? and why final warning? were`s the first or second? --mark nutley (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage

Can you correct the first diff on the complaint please - its garbage William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done i have no idea how that happened --mark nutley (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

coaching :)

Am too tied up to look really carefully but if I were you I would have just gone for the admin who prohibited edit warring, and been a lot clearer in the logic and not got the diffs wrong. In my personal opinion GoRight and ZP5 have clearly irritated many people with badly formed and incoherent complaints which lacked substance. Thegoodlocust is also his own worst enemy with stuff like [5]. So you need to get complaits really crisp and sharp. Plenty of admins do not admire WMC either (even if I do a little) and would have acted immediately if offered his head on a plate. Your complaint had some real substance (viz: this article has a strict measure on edit warring applied and what is edit warring if straight reverting other people's changes as "non-consensus" and then making a bunch of non consensus changes of your own is not?). But you aren't going to get many chances at rewriting it and if you don't express it succinctly and you get the diffs wrong it only undermines your credibility for next time. --BozMo talk 22:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thing hippocrates (i think thats the guy) fixed the diffs as he said they were broken and when he did he chopped off a bit so the second one led to a bunch of garbage :( But like i said i can`t really be bothered, whats the point when they quite simply won`t discuss and twist the rules to suit their ends?

I will continue to edit other articles which interest me but i am giving the global warming ones a miss for a while. Thanks --mark nutley (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably wise. I haven't edited any of them for a while. --BozMo talk 23:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --TS 11:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks tony. --mark nutley (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gore effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Too new"

I don't think anything will help. Obsfucation appears to be the SOP for all of those articles, and I don't have the time to dedicate. I seriously wonder how others mange to put in this much time and still apparently hold a full time job. Thanks though. Arzel (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, though, I hope you both do understand that we're writing about science, and not this season's hemlines. This is an encyclopedia. We don't perform synthesis in the absence of external synthesis by qualified experts. Show me a synthesis that incorporates a novel paper and I will say it has probably entered the mainstream. Show me an editor trying to enter a statement sourced from a single new paper and I'll look to see if it's been evaluated. Science is not news. --TS 14:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When science becomes manipulated in the favor of a view it does service to no one. Who are you to decide what is or is not science. By your own virtue you and a few others are deciding what is considered science because of a personal view. I have worked in the scientific field long enough to know how it works and how personal interests are often put past the larger view of "science". Too many of "you" claim to know the "truth" about AGW, ie that it is a fact. An actual scientist would never take that view, because an actual scientist with a background in statistics would never take such a stance. I don't claim to know whether AGW exists or what effects it will have, but I find it highly annoying that some editors will go through such lengths to hide any information that would suggest it does not exist. Come down off your horse and perhaps we can see some common ground. Arzel (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we stick to the subject please? Importing conspiracy theories from external websites and blogs does your argument no good. --TS 13:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy

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

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

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

The jaundiced bit was more to do with others on the talk pages including here. On Pachauri I am not sure that the bit you added broke BLP but the guy is mentioned many hundreds of times in the Telegraph (on a basis search excluding the blog pages) and it is hard to see why this call for his resignation is sufficient weight to include versus all the other stuff. It is kind of a bit like including "Dawkins says there is no God" in an article on the Archbishop of Canterbury. However where I do sympathise is that these kind of bits ot trashy criticism are included in some of the skeptic bios and when I have time I am taking them out [6] [7] etc. --BozMo talk 21:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

In these sensitive times, please don't make unmarked reverts [8]. Discuss these on the talk page first to avoid disruption William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wtf are you on about how was it unmarked? --mark nutley (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fuck I'm on about is the revert that I gave you the diff for. This is what we in wiki-land call a WP:REVERT. It is conventional to mark reverts with "rv" or "revert" in order to alert other readers to what you have done. A revert not so marked is an unmarked revert. I hope that is all clear now William M. Connolley (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your profanity, given i had not actually done a revert your above posturing and baiting is pointless, take it elsewere. --mark nutley (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err? You were the one who initiated that profanity. >>wtf<< in your comment. You may want to refactor your comment accordingly and assume good faith --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, i fail to see your point using the acronym wtf is hardly the same as full out cussing on my talk page, it is baiting and rude, plain as that. --mark nutley (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WTF means "What the Fuck" - and if you click on the wiki-link that Connolley gave - you'd find that it goes there to describe it. So what you said was "What the fuck are you on about..." and WMC answered "The fuck i am on about ...". Don't use profanity if you do not like it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I always thought it meant "What the Fudge?". --GoRight (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things, 1 Read what i wrote in reply to your last post. 2 Why are you replying for connolley he is more than vocal enough to reply himself. mark nutley (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. No - an acronym is no less a profanity than writing it out completely. Acronyms are simply short versions for writing out the whole. I'm replying because it seemed likely from your response that you weren't going to listen to WMC no matter what he said. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even if the acronym means what you say it means, yes, actually spelling the word out is considered MORE profane. That's why you see things like A**hole on blogs which would not otherwise allow the use of the fully spelled out word. This should be obvious. And stop trying to provide cover for the abuses of other editors. --GoRight (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

You are obviously engaged in an edit war at Rajendra K. Pachauri. As opposed to engaging in stale back-and-forth reverts, attempt to find a version of the article that all parties would find acceptable. Reviewing your contributions to article space in 2010, you have reverted non-vandalistic edits on Scaffolding, Václav Klaus ‎, Rajendra K. Pachauri and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. While I don't disagree with some of your reverts, this means you have reverted on every single article you have edited in 2010. I suggest that you are overusing reversion as an editing tactic. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect

User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]