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)

You got it, i have noticed wmc has broken the 3rr rule though, what should be done about this?

And to be honest i`m not wanting to edit war, but if the other guys actually were constructive and helped to edit the article so they don`t find the addition so offensive i would not mind so much.

The rules even say you should not revert without taking it to talk but the other guys just won`t do that :( --mark nutley (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC (please don't call him "will") did not break 3RR as far as I can see. I would block him if he did. --BozMo talk 23:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I wouldn't now as the page is protected so rules say no block. But the 4RRs were not in the same 24 hours. Edit warring though is another matter. --BozMo talk 23:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

[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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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]]]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You should be aware of [2] but there may not be any need for further comment there. I recommend that you work expeditiously to recraft the article as a description of a pop culture phenomenon or something similar to deflect the argument that it is being used to try and describe an actual physical effect. Yes, that's ludicrous, but why even give them an angle? --GoRight (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The editors who were expressing a lot of concern about the article had trimmed it back to basically nothing, which was OK. I took a stab at using the existing sources to make it more interesting while trying to stay within the bounds that might still be acceptable. There is still more to do. I have only included the events from two of the sources. The other sources should be used to briefly summarize the events mentioned in them. We can also look for additional sources for other events, and we should probably but a little more effort into representing the critics viewpoint. I included what was there from the source I have covered already, but there are likely other sources out there that cover this from the other side of the issue. I don't think it will be accepted if we add too much more to the lead. The body thus far is a simple list of events that, hopefully, won't be too controversial since it only claims to be a list of media reported claims. See what you think. Add more events from other reliable sources, etc.

Throw it away if you prefer to rewrite yourself. We should review the neologisms policy stuff and make sure that we have those bases covered. Give that a go if you want as well. --GoRight (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers mate, i hope the delete won`t happen after the work that has gone into it, i`ll put aside some time tonight to do more on it. mark nutley (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There is on, i can see it from my window... --Polentario (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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 [3] [4] etc. --BozMo talk 21:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV warning

I don't know if other people have told you already, but just in case, here's an official administrative warning from an uninvolved neutral administrator: edits like your initial draft of the "Gore Effect" page ([5]) display a reckless disregard for NPOV and are therefore disruptive. In a sensitive topic area like climate change such shenanigans cannot be tolerated. If I see you recklessly pushing your POV in a manner like this once more, you will be indef-blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, dude, this is already being discussed extensively at [6]. This warning is BS and indicative of a POV on your part. You seem to be trying to wrack up a lot of indefinite blocks lately based on nothing, except of course on the points of view that you don't agree with. --GoRight (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What the MfD discusses is the fate of the article. What I'm dealing with here is the behavioral issue about the author. The warning stands, and is extended to you too, since I see you aided and abetted in writing that draft. [7] Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Actually no he did not, i wrote it goright has helped to rewrite it after it went up for deletion, get your facts straight please before accusing people and withdraw gorights warning please. Also i was not pushing a pov. I was working on a wip in my own userspace which i believed was ok. I asked for advice on it so as not to break rules with the article. As it stood at the time it was a rough draft and needed input. The gore effect is a well documented urban myth and it is hardly my fault that climate related articles are so sensitive, nor is it my fault that proponents of AGW have an issue with it. I am not being reckless with this wip, i am being careful. Recklessness would be putting it in mainspace, not creating a rough draft and then asking advice. I have not acted recklessly nor was i pushing my POV. --mark nutley (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Then perhaps you had better extend it to me? As another uninvolved administrator (except I suppose I voted at the MfD which was an involvement) I also made some comments on this user space article and in general I think there is community support for a wide latitude on user space drafts. Indeed part of the purpose of user space is to put together drafts from materials which do not adhere to policy, in order to discuss balance and clean them up. --BozMo talk 08:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, this warning is BS. The MfD lists many opinions on the fate of the article in question and is decidedly no consensus. If the subject matter is inherently the "reckless disregard for NPOV" that you purport it to be, then the MfD would have snowed delete. It hasn't, so the subject matter isn't. So do you intend to indefinitely block every editor who holds a minority POV on any science topic you ever look at? You appear to be well on the way to establishing a reputation for just that. I assume you are aware that there are policies governing even your own behavior, right? Since we're tossing about meaningless warnings tonight, consider yourself warned. Have a nice day! --GoRight (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, You are being way too argumentative here. Please use reason before rhetoric. --BozMo talk 08:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. I view his recent actions (not just here) but regarding Pcarbonn, Dual Use (whom he indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet when the SPI said no such thing, I have asked for clarification from delaney), and now this as just bald face provocation. But I've been a bad boy so I will slink away now ... --GoRight (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my rationale here: there is a difference between mere "normal" POV editing, and what I have been calling "reckless POV editing" here. The former is, unfortunately, a common phenomenon, and it is up to editorial debate to iron it out. The latter is an ipso facto disruptive pattern of editing, which should not need to be handled by editorial debate but may have to be met with administrative intervention. Reckless POV editing means making edits which any rational observer, by applying simple common sense, should recognise as obviously unacceptable.

Your initial versions of the article (after GoRight had made his first contributions to it and immediately before the speedy deletion nomination [8]) contained the explicit claim that the "Gore Effect" was real: it was claimed to be a "phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail, or snow whenever Al Gore visits an area"; it claims that "instances" of it "have happened", and that "evidence has continued to mount suggesting a correlation". These claims were all unhedged, stated with a straight face, ostensibly as claims about a real fact in the real world.

Now, the claim that weather phenomena are magically sensitive to an individual's activities is, prima facie, obviously nonsensical. No rational adult person with an elementary amount of education in a modern society could possibly, even for a minute, entertain this claim as a serious proposition. It's analogous to claiming that the moon is made of green cheese. If anybody did take it seriously, they must be caught in patterns of magical thinking on the intellectual level of a ten-year-old, or they must be in a state where they allow their political agendas to get the better of their rational judgment in a rather extreme way. In either case, they should not be Wikipedia editors.

Good-faith rational editors should not be forced to waste their time refuting, salvaging or correcting such nonsense. You forced multiple editors to do just this. This is highly disruptive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish, I have not forced anyone to do anything, people to what they do here of their own free will. As stated it was a WIP, it was in userspace and was therefore not disruptive. mark nutley (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Several well respected editors had "assisted" in the recreation of the article into user space and provided advice for the purposes of cleaning it up. It was not disruptive there in user space at all. The disruption BEGAN with the aggressive action to nominate the article for speedy deletion in the first place. That's when things swerved into being disruptive, not before.

You should also note that the article's notability is as a form of political humor. This should be obvious to any rational observer, by applying simple common sense. This argument that people might be fooled into believing that it was a true natural phenomenon holds no water and carries no weight. It is a faux excuse being used to hound and harass a new editor. --GoRight (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for spreading "political humour" (and in fact, no, it was not recognisable as such anyway, and I have no indication the original author intended it as such). Creating "humorous" hoaxes is disruptive too, and it makes no difference whether it was created directly in article space or in user space, since it was clearly marked as something ultimately intended for the latter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? the links here Political_humor say otherwise.

(edit conflict) "Wikipedia isn't for spreading 'political humour'" - True, but it is here for documenting notable social phenomena that is embodied by that political humor. I find it curious that you are forced to keep referring to the article's initial state rather than what it has become. It seems to me that this has followed a perfectly acceptable and logical course. Mark arrived at a first pass of the content and then asked for feedback (which he certainly got but not from the venue he expected). As a result of that feedback the article has been improved, all perfectly safe within user space. Is this not exactly how new articles should come into being? --GoRight (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, in fact, it isn't. If you want to write an article about the Moon, you are not supposed to first write a version that consists of the claim that "the Moon is made of green cheese", and then leave it to others to write something acceptable instead. You are supposed to skip that first stage and write something acceptable right away. If Marknutley had wanted to write a responsible NPOV page about the social phenomenon of people making fun of Al Gore, he could have done so easily from the start. But that's not what he did, and it's evidently not what he wanted: he wanted to join in making fun of Al Gore himself. For a text about the social phenomenon, his draft doesn't count even as a first good-faith attempt, not even a clumsy and misguided one; it was plainly disruptive and irresponsible. And so was your decision to help writing it without taking any steps to correct the fundamental problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, isn't this point part of the learning process and exactly why people such as yourself are cautioned to not WP:BITE the newbies? Part of the feedback he received was that this article needed to be approached from the perspective of documenting a social phenomena, rather than with how he had started. Then as a result multiple editors collaborated to help make that be the case. Again, exactly how things are supposed to work. Collaboration and mutual support.

Now, as far as I am concerned the phrasing of your warning steps well over the line drawn by WP:AGF by including such verbiage as "reckless disregard for NPOV", "therefore disruptive", and "shenanigans". Have the rules changed suddenly so that WP:AGF no longer applies to admins? Please do the honorable thing, apologize for failing to WP:AGF and move on. --GoRight (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

After more than a week of intense and very active immersion in debate over NPOV, which is what Marknutley went through before starting this article, he no longer gets a newbie discount in a matter like this. That week had certainly taught him enough about "NPOV" to enable him to spend a lot of time arguing other people's editing at the COI noticeboard and other arcane places. He was perfectly aware of the demands of NPOV by the time he wrote this. He flouted the rules deliberately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fut.Perfect - back off. Crafting a user-space draft of an article is no grounds for a NPOV warning, you know that. He went along with the changes that were made, and many editors agreed there was sufficient material for a small article. Your persistence on this thread is biting and bullying. Please cease. ATren (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Chateau vue gene.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Chateau vue gene.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DarknessShines2. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 14:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Again ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion on the thrust of the RFC

Mark, I think we should change the thrust of our RFC. Rather than argue for inclusion on Pachauri, I would prefer to argue for consistent standards across BLPs in the GW topic area, which means either allow criticism on proponent articles like Pachauri or removing it on skeptic articles (where barely-sourced criticisms are rampant). I actually prefer the latter now, after Alex Harvey chimed in.

Anyway, I think we have grounds for a much larger argument on consistency of standards, and specifically dealing with a handful of editors who work to enforce an inconsistent standard. Would you mind retargeting the Pachauri RFC to this more general concern? ATren (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well i`m ok with that, however i don`t see how it an rfc about getting pachauri`s COI can be worded to include other bio`s? If we try for all are equal across the board i suspect it will fail. Look at the current problems on pilmers page, we got some of the junk out but they are fighting tooth and nail to keep the rest in. I`ll follow your lead in this but i think it`ll be a bust. --mark nutley (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Calculations.

From 23:33, 29 December 2009 to 10:50, 7 January 2010 is:

 23:33       -> 30 december             -        00:27
 30 december ->  6 december (inclusive) - 8 days 00:00
 00:00       -> 10:50                   -        10:50
                                        ----------------
                                          8 days 11:17

That is no where close to 2 weeks (14 days) - and since most consider "several" to be more than 2 it is even more misleading.

As for Williams comment:

From the 15th December to the 17th January there are 33 days, that is quite a bit short of 2 months - i know that you probably meant that there was mentions in both December and January - but there still isn't much more than a month of coverage.

Please just correct the mistakes will ya? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07, that looks like ten to me kim. I have already updated the section on this btw.

Coverage over two months is two months, not exactly two months i know but the coverage does span two months so that bit seems fine to me.

--mark nutley (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Counting the 27 minutes on the first day as a whole day is interesting, and makes for a nice lawyering argument if someone inserts something on 23:59 and gets reverted on 00:00 - thus having an edit stay for either 2days or 1 minute depending on how one looks at it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

might i ask why you are so obsessed with this? Minutes, hours, days, really what`s the difference? Are you thinking that those few hours less may change the outcome of the RFC? I already changed it, i`m not going to again just because you have a thing for exact time. It will just confuse the issue about the RFC which is the inclusion of well sourced, pertinent text. Perhaps you should focus on the issues. I`m done with this now. mark nutley (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Had you changed things when you were pointed out that it was misleading, then i would have had no problem at all. Instead you persisted, and only after several comments did it occur to you to correct the problem. If your purpose is to mislead people then i could see your point - if it on the other hand, is to present things as neutrally (with regards to the points raised) as possible (which is what should be done in an RFC), then you really should take heed when people in good faith point out mistakes. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

make a sandbox

/Sandbox

FYI

I removed a bit of your comment. I want to keep this at a high level. ATren (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No worrys mate :) --mark nutley (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

This is to remind you that the Biographies of living persons policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia. These recent comments by you at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change appear to breach that policy by referring to identifiable individuals as liars: [9] [10] [11].

You're a relatively new editor so perhaps you don't realise how seriously we take the abuse of Wikipedia's pages for making such contentious and damaging claims. I want to leave you in no doubt as to the seriousness of this. Stop immediately. You are causing harm. --TS 13:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And another: here you cast a damaging innuendo at an identifiable individual. Stop. --13:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark. I'll move this to your talk page. I hope you don't mind.

You say: "it is verifiable fact. They lied about the glaciers and it is admitted to in the mail on sunday which i linked to. They lied about hurricanes which is also linked to."

This is false, Mark. Lai says they knew the material was not peer reviewed. He did not say the IPCC lied. That is the Mail's interpretation. The Times article you cite is also missing any evidence that the IPCC lied, much less that they admit to it. Please stop. --TS

Ok tony, ill not use the word liar it it makes you feel better, but i would request you read Landsea`s resignation letterIt clearly shows what i said was true. --mark nutley (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, but you missed one. You now say "the IPCC knew it was a wrong all along." This is an allegation of dishonesty that is not justified by the evidence. Are you doing the Pachauri talk, too? --TS 16:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Also I caution you against citing the opinions and recollections of a single individual as if it represented that facts. There are many sides to controversial situations, and taking Landsea's side is not the business of any Wikipedian. --TS 16:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

All done, btw with regards to landsea, when he made his resignation public he also released the e-mails he had with pachauri which clearly show the truth of the matter. You know tony, i do respect you, you do try to remain neutral. How you can defend these people after all that has been exposed is beyond me though. Cheers --mark nutley (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not my business to attack or defend. Nor yours. --TS 16:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to...

send you a smile :-) keep on going! --Alexander.stohr (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers man, i noticed your post on pachauri`s talk article. One of the links you used as a reference was a blog, blogs can`t be used under the WP:RS You should read through it and update your links :)

I was going to post this there but you saved me the trouble, unless of course you don`t actually read this :) --mark nutley (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

i have no problems with that. even if one cant quote directly from a blog, it can be a good jump for true links to acceptable sources and of course for understanding of a topic. i think i was just able to catch up with the discussion there, at least for a moment. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

[[ and [

Wikipages get [[.]]. Bare urls get [.]. Please learn the difference, your habit of using double brackets for urls leaves spare []'s around William M. Connolley (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tol

Strangely Richard Tol = Richard Tol (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool, i never thought to look here for your name :) Man there`s a lot of talented people hanging around here. --mark nutley (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal will publish our op-ed on Pachauri any minute now. It is worded more strongly than the piece in Der Spiegel, and WSJ is more of household name. Richard Tol (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool, i linked in a bbc piece were pachauri says he will not resign. Have you a link to the wsj piece? --mark nutley (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Civility warning

Do not use offensive diminutives on the article talk pages; I've removed it [12]. yes, I've used one for you, just to demonstrate that you don't like it. Feel free to go in and remove it; or reply to this, and I will William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How on earth did you guess my old nickname from school :) Patchy is not a diminutive, he actually came up with that name for himself. No need to remove your comment i`m not as touchy as you over these things :) --mark nutley (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you don`t believe me :) Patchy--mark nutley (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you a friend of his? If not, then i suggest that you do not use diminutives. It is unnecessary, and certainly something, that many people find offensive, especially if the one using it isn't on friendly terms with them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So does that rule out Roland Rat and Hong Kong Phooey who are famous children's TV characters with left footers named in their honour? Seriously though, best avoid these sorts of things. It is amazing what some people take offence at. --BozMo talk 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You ain`t kidding Bozmo :) I`ll try and avoid the use of nicknames in the future though, I`d hate to cause offence over something so trivial, I prefer to offend Big Time :) --mark nutley (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was always taught "a gentleman never gives offence accidentally". It is a good principle. --BozMo talk 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, you really look kind of silly saying something like that after defending WMC's constant incivility. ATren (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not him/ I don't mind looking silly but perhaps I do less defending than you imagine, (although sometimes I do). Most of the time I just ask people to complain properly --BozMo talk 06:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Emailing Monckton

Thank you for doing that - I just saw that people are *still* edit warring over that and protected the page on a different Wrong Version than last time. Personally I would prefer no image, but I do not myself do much work with images and am not comfortable invoking the BLP exception here. If that comes through, do please let me know if you would prefer that to going to WP:RFPP. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 15:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well he is currently in oz on a speaking tour, so i dunno when or if he will reply :) But it seems like an incredibly stupid thing to edit war over, even if it is a god awful pic :) --mark nutley (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully you remembered to mention that Monckton will have to send a letter to Wikipedia to confirm transferral/confirmation of copyright? That has been a problem in the past. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes i did kim, is`nt there also a way to do it online? be a lot easier. --mark nutley (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that i know of, but then i haven't been involved much in the Wikimedia side of things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for working proactively and constructively to resolve this issue in a highly satisfactory way. You're setting a good example, which is definitely in short supply these days. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Are we waiting for a letter, or just to upload the picture? Agree with MastCell, of course, but I do not believe the current picture should remain if we are waiting for further correspondence. Mackan79 (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I just got in from a job and see the new image is up :)All is covered on the licence as i forwarded jo`s e-mail to the image licence guys. And thanks for the kind words guys :) mark nutley (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Glaciers

Hi Mark, in your latest comment at the glacier retreat article you seem to be saying that we must write there about the glacier prediction error or stop citing IPCC. That's a non sequitur, you're confusing two different issues. --Tasty monster 08:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mark. When the major authority in the field has made such major errors on this exact subject (and are referenced twice in the lead) it's essential that there be some reference to these errors. It only need be a sentence or so and a link, but then that's only what was added (by two different editors) and immediately reverted (by an editor supposed to be on 1RR). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP

You are not to speculate on the motives of identifiable living people on wikipedia. Your recent comment on 2/0s talk was fully over the line. I strongly suggest you take a step back. Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked a question, and fail to see the problem with it, I suggest you take a long walk :) --mark nutley (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to consider further and read Russell. Plenty of statements can be implicit in questions (his example was "have you stopped beating your wife" which he asked of a celibate Roman Priest demanding a yes/no answer). The fact that something is a question does not excuse you from breaking rules with the implications contained. --BozMo talk 15:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies Bozmo, I truly see no harm in asking a question. WMC was a climate modeller, so it seemed a reasonable question to ask, I certainly meant no harm. I have struck the question now. --mark nutley (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine now, thanks. The world of climate modelling though is fairly big and "did you screw that up" implies quite a bit about what you think about the competence of the person you are addressing. --BozMo talk 16:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is sort-of a shame taht the question has been struck, because I could have answered it. A very small part of the answer would ahve been the total disconnect between climate modelling and monitoring William M. Connolley (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Monckton-washington-09.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Monckton-washington-09.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DarknessShines2. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 05:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification

[13]--BozMo talk 15:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and responded, sorry for being stupid. mark nutley (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC

Outcome of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC:

• Marknutley is warned that further participation in any edit war in the probation area will lead to a one-revert restriction or similar sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

- 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 2/0, and sorry for being an ejit :)

Letter

Hi Mark, No problem on the edit warring, I saw your original comment on the probation page too. You stopped, and apologised and you were not alone. Anyway apology = end of story. I don't know about the source to reliably present the original letter. In general though you have to be careful about deriving your own conclusions from a primary source such as the original letter. I have seen arguments presented before saying a primary source is only good for a direct quote but that any kind of summary is a form of original research. I don't even know who Landsea is so not in a strong position to help... --BozMo talk 21:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, i found another source for it so i think it`ll be ok. Any thoughts on this making it into main space :) --mark nutley (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Skeptic names

Can you explain the opposition at the main Global Warming article to having the names of a good number of prominent critics (ie the ones people will come across in the non-scientific media) in the article? To me it seems obvious those names are needed to act as key-words, either to the bio itself or to a sub-page. The arguments of Monckton et al should be documented somewhere, whether or not it's possible to respond without OR. In a few years time, discarded arguments might even become more interesting than current statements. Is there something I'm missing? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I did`nt oppose it, the usual suspects did. The compromise was to be a link to the list of AGW sceptics and to AGW controversy, i was happy with that proposel --mark nutley (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy with it. We all agree that "search" is the way to navigate these articles (WMC told us so in no uncertain terms, you've probably seen me reference his instructions) - so why this rejection of including key-words that would enable people to find things? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A new source for your work in progress

Look at comment 3.1 , which is one of the IPCC's own revierers and he states:

"There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted."

Ouch, that's pretty harsh, and it looks like he was correct about it being written by Greenpeace. :) TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[14]

Article probation enforcement request

Please note that I have filed an article probation enforcement request against you concerning your abuse of article probation enforcement requests. The request is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Marknutley. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

as a result of the above I have banned you from bringing further complaints against User:William M. Connolley until 12 april. If you do feel the need to bring more complaints in future try and make them more focused.©Geni 03:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is reasonable. CoM had just filed against WMC just above, so there was no need for another, and some of the diffs you provide were minor. I think it would be better if everyone would step back and wait a few days, collect diffs, and only bring it there if the problem continues.

Erm, i just woke up and saw this :), so good morning to all. I`ll consider this carefully. However should i see WMC breaking his parole again what should i do? It strikes me as strange that my complaint was upheld yet i am now being told not to file another enforcement request. mark nutley (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If such a case should arise you should refrain from taking action. I'm sure there will be plently of others ready to report such things.©Geni 18:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no deadline. If you notice bad edits, record them, and perhaps approach the user with your concern (though WMC is sometimes hostile to such requests so maybe not in his case). If the problems persist, and you get to the point of a dozen or so diffs that appear to be obvious infractions, you can alert one of us to take a look, and if we think it merits a report we'll file it. I personally think you've filed to quickly in at least two of your WMC requests, and in this last one your report was right after CoM's similar report, covering some of the same diffs. Too many requests creates noise on that page, which makes it more difficult to enforce (especially for new admins arriving to help) ATren (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys, i`m cool with this. Thanks to all mark nutley (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your new article.

It appears that your new article is receiving a less than collegial response at the moment despite your efforts to solicit input beforehand. Don't despair. This is a sign of the times, I am afraid, which will take some effort on everyone's part to correct. No matter what happens take this to be a learning experience and pay close attention to the arguments and rationales being set forth. Therein lies the gold nugget of this experience.

It might be nice if some of the other editors there could be more helpful in assisting a relatively new editor with one of their first articles rather than simply piling on and seeking to delete the article before it even has been given a reasonable chance to be improved. And even if deletion is the ultimate fate they could certainly be more congenial in their approach by explaining their objections without suggesting nefarious motives on your part.

My advice at this point is to embrace the process, learn from the experience, seek collaborative solutions, and be open to feedback even if it comes at the end of a pointy stick. --GoRight (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Lol, i like the pointy stick :) But it is all part of the learning curve and if it gets deleted i can always rework it again, i`m not going anywere :) mark nutley (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark, we aren't ripping that article to shreds yet, because you are on a learning curve. That isn't going to happen, if you simply dismiss critique. You still haven't acknowledged even one problem with your text, that is a problem. As an example: You should immediately have changed the quote that wasn't one ("alarmist"), you should have acknowledged that a 2007 references cannot be used to support a statement about something that happened in late 2009. I'm deliberately dissecting a single paragraph, to show you what problems there is in it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry kim, i assumed anyone seeing a mistake would correct it, simply because i am on a learning curve :) You guys are looking through it and hippocrite has changed a lot of the article, i only reinserted one piece he removed. So i think i`m taking in the critique fairly well. But feel free to remove or replace anything, if necessary i can get more ref`s to reinsert stuff which i think belongs in there, but you guys feel is not properly sourced. I will of course present it in the talk section to get feedback, And i`m not trying to be obtuse here i just want to see the article given a fair shake. thanks mark nutley (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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 (2nd nomination) 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. Orange Mike | Talk 03:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tone

Comments like "once again you let your pov cloud your judgement" inapproriately personalise content disputes. They are totally unhelpful, and violate AGF. Guettarda (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Editwarring

Mark, you and i were specifically warned here not to get involved in edit-wars. Your current edit[15] on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is such. Please do a self-revert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe i am edit warring kim, cla put it in stephen reverted it and i believe in talk it has been proven that this is acceptable. I`ll ask 2/0 to look at it and if he thinks it`s edit warring i`ll self revert, is that acceptable? mark nutley (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You haven't "proven" that it is acceptable - you've made claims and assertions that (imho from a long experience) is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of WP policy. For instance your claim, which you have stated earlier as well, that fringe entails that content should be included, or that when a book on a specific subject is notable enough to have an article, then it must ipso-facto also be so notable that it must be included in the article on the subject.... Notability and weight are context based arguments, not single-shot ones :). You may want to ponder why we've removed An Incovenient Truth as a "See also" for exactly the same reasons previously (on loads of articles) - just so you don't think that it has anything to do with the source being partisan. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I don`t think your being partisan kim :) I would assume the reason gore book is not linked in is due to the fact that it is awful and replete with errors. The reason i believe the argument for inclusion is made is because of wp:undue It clearly says that the booker book can be included as it is both notable and has gotten enough press coverage to give it weight. I`m unsure why you guys think a link to an article on this book is so bad to be honest, it is well written and the hockey stick section is well supported, I think it would go well in the IPCC section about same mark nutley (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your question at my talkpage: yes, please self-revert. WMC removed that book from the See also section, Cla68 replaced it, Stephan Schulz removed it, and you replaced it, all in the span of about 16 hours. I see nothing resembling consensus for inclusion at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change#Booker and "non expert fringe positions" or the preceding two sections dealing with the same book. The five hours of discussion between SS's edit and yours do not even show a significant swing in that direction, and your only contribution was a quarter hour after your revert. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification following comment on my talkpage: you have definitely been active in the discussion, but you did not present a clinching argument just before your revert. In some cases, a sufficiently stellar point can end a an edit war by bringing everyone immediately into agreement; that is highly unlikely in WP:DUE discussions, but it is one of the things to check for when investigating a dispute. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok mate, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just divorced

Try this one

The Gore-Effect is an ironical expression named after Al Gore for untimely snowy or chilly weather in connection with meetings and demonstrations about global warming. In the style of an urban legend, reports on the alleged effect spread after an individual event 2004 which met the criteria. Lists with events from several parts of the world were described on informal Websites and blogs and used every now and then also as a political weapon. 2007 the term found its way into the urban dictionary. Since 2008 the term emerged increasingly in the American and international blogosphere and press, so for instance in connection with the blizzard at the end of UN-climate conference in Copenhagen.

In particular the effect is used to mock about former US presidential candidate Al Gore. Its used to ironically claim his lectures and activities would regularly coincide with cold weather or him even being even able to release them. . The Gore effect is used by foes of Gore similarly as the urban legend about him having personally having invented the Internet.

German columnist Harald Martenstein mockingly added, Gore effect would deliver a sort of proof for nature or God having humor.

Occurrence

Some mention a January 2004 against-global-warming demonstration in New York as first noted occurrence of the Gore effect. Allegedly it took place at one of the coldest days in history of New York. Conservatives Roy Blunt and James Inhofe started to comment that weather and Gores message dont fit.

• According The Australian Herald Sun the effect occured 2006 in Australia and New Zealand on the occasion of a lecture of Gore.
• Senate hearings about global warming involving Gore in March 2006 were allegedly called off due to a snowstorm and accompanied by ice rain in January 2009
• Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen had to stop an Arctic crossing planned to protest against global warming after extreme cold weather and frost bites. Frostbite Ends Bancroft Arnesen Trek, Patrick Condon, The Washington Post, 12. March 2007 global warming melting down, J.R. Dunn in American Thinker, 14. March 2007
• Stephen McIntyre mentioned How Al Gore Saved Christmas Dec.25.2008 a fairy tale style relation between lectures of Al Gore in Toronto 2006 and 2007 and major snowfall afterwards.
• Due to violent snows in the USA during the UN-climate conference in Bali some bloggers speculated on a remote Gore effect.
• October 2008 a debate of the British House of Commons about climatic legislation saw the first snow in October in London since 1922.

Background

Joseph D’Aleo interpretes the Gore-Effect as a showcase of the uncertainity of local weather forecasts. Republican Lisa Miller calls the Gore-effect funny but without having a notable political effect. Gores speaker, Kalee Kreider confirms the amusing aspect but calls not to forget the reality of climate change.

Others

• Synchronicity
• Fritz Walter Weather
• Pauli effect

Edit warring again.

Mark, once more i will suggest that you revert yourself, on MWP, since you are again edit-warring contrary to your (and my) probationary warning. I'm sorry - but you will have to restrict yourself to finding consensus first in such cases. There are several reasons for your edits at MWP to be wrong, one of these being that it is quite clear that you haven't read up on the topic, and are making your own personal interpretation. It is rather stunning for instance that you are citing a 1994 book by Hughes, with the article containing several later references by Hughes that show the opposite. It is also stunning that you are ignoring what (for instance) the NZ reference says about the scientific opinion on the temporal and spatial extent of the MWP - but only use it to cherry-pick. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, please note the following [http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Glacial.pdf The

results suggest that it was a global event] Also links to america, china, south america, and of course europe proves it was global, even in the article talk page stephen and yourself said it was global. This is fact, it is well sourced so live with it mark nutley (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark a global event is not the same as a global warm event. And you are still editwarring (you are at 3RR). Are you going to self-revert? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Erm, how am i at 3rr? I have done 1? All the others are edits to the article, if people blindly revert and i have to rewrite with more refs that is not reverting is it? Also one of those reverts was to save me rewriting, i needed to add a bit to a sentence it was discussed on talk mark nutley (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to ask a last time. Are you going to self-revert? If you are uncertain about what constitutes a revert, then please read WP:3RR. The short version is this (emphasis mine): A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No i am not going to self revert. As explained above, the sources say it was global mark nutley (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that this is a breach of the probationary restrictions that we are under - correct? And that the consequences may be a 1RR permanent restriction for you? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, however i do not believe i am edit warring. If you feel otherwise you know what to do :) See you on the RFE board mark nutley (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've filed the request here: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Mark_Nutley_.282.29 --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confirming here that you have been notified by Kim of the enforcement action. You may wish to comment there. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)