Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:16, 12 March 2010

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)

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 ]]

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 (Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages" 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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 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 () 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 . 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. 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 ) 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages 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) "Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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

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

] gore effect, lives to get mfd another day

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 Misplaced Pages. These recent comments by you at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change appear to breach that policy by referring to identifiable individuals as liars: .

You're a relatively new editor so perhaps you don't realise how seriously we take the abuse of Misplaced Pages'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) Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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  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 Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages: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

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

Notification

--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 Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC

Outcome of Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 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: Misplaced Pages: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)

Revert and No Talk Probation

I noticed your comments , . Given that you are restricted from formal complaints on the editor, do you believe the offenses are being adequately handled? Should there be a formal General Sanction complaint on this issue? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, I do think an RFE is in order but i am not allowed to do so. mark nutley (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the subject, not the editor

I think this is unnecessarily personal and can only cause further trouble. Everybody in the climate change area seems to be using this term "the usual suspects" to describe those whom they disagree with--it isn't just you, I accept. I'm asking if you could make an effort to, as Lar puts it, "raise your game." I promise to make an effort too.

I have tried to make it plain that the negative opinions I'm describing on Booker's scholarship (attributable to people such as the Press Complaints Commission, which I assure you is neither me nor William M. Connolley, and to mainstream reviewers such as former Nature editor Philip Ball) are far from being my opinion alone. The bit about being "misled by the internet"? Those are Booker's own words. A number of other editors have lodged objections to using Booker, and these include David Souza, DroEsperanto, Kim D. Petersen, Nigelj, and Guettarda, so even your decision to single out just two of us is a bit contentious. --TS 15:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, i did not single you out tony, i used the two names in that section which had commented on the use of booker negatively. I have read the PCC`s report and the use of it against this inclusion is flawed, very much so in fact. This is about weather or not chapter four is a good overview of the HS and how it came to be the poster child for the IPCC, the sources used in the chapter are impeccable which you must admit, the only reason i see for those arguing against it is their dislike of booker. BTW when i say the usual suspects i mean all pro agw proponents, in is just easier to write the usual suspects :) it is not because they disagree with me, it`s because i`m a lazy typist mark nutley (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't dislike Booker. I've worked on his biography with Jprw and have promoted the sections that deal with his very long and admirable career, relegating the controversy about his eccentric views on science and his poorly researched statements of scientific fact, to a later section. Above on this page, I've listed some of the reasons why I and many others don't consider Booker to be a reliable source, and there is more detail on the article talk page. That's why it's frustrating to be accused of adopting an "I don't like it" position, when it's plain that the position is instead based on strong evidence of Booker's poor scholarship in this as well as in other fields of science.

On this term "the usual suspects", remember that global warming enjoys a very strong scientific consensus, and somebody who writes so as to reflect that strong consensus is not a proponent of anything except the neutral point of view. But the phrase itself, using the word "suspects", is prejudicial and sours the atmosphere. I don't care whether you use it or Connolley uses it, it's wrong. I hope you can see that this kind of language needs to be rolled back from our dialog. --TS 15:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This is an unacceptable attack on my integrity, please withdraw it immediately. . . . dave souza, talk 17:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave, you brought the fight to that page and seem to be doing nothing yourself to tone down the situation. If you want MN to remain civil it is probably best to set a good example. Arzel (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on Mark's actions, as is appropriate when discussing behaviour, and have not made any personal attacks. Both of you would be wise to follow my example. . . dave souza, talk 18:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You not only commented on my actions, you also accused me of Classic synthesis, advancing a position not supported by the sources. I'm sure your pov pushing and quote mining was inadvertent, due to carelessness rather than design So calling me a pov pusher quote miner and careless is not a PA? Rubbish mark nutley (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I think he said that you must have made a mistake due to carelessness when you advanced a position not supported by the sources you quoted. I think you have to WP:AAGF - I mean, you did advance a position not supported by the sources you quoted, so you either are a dishonest PoV pusher (I don't think you are), or you made a mistake (which is obviously what happened). Perhaps it would have been better to have just said "Mark, the source you used dosen't support your statement," and perhaps everyone will redact their comment to that, but can you see the difference between what he wrote and you calling his statements "constant lies?" Hipocrite (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have already redacted the "your", i should not have blamed dave alone for the accusation of wp:synth and have edited my post accordingly, Dave i am sorry mark nutley (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, mark, that's a significant improvement but you really shouldn't say that anyone has lied, assume good faith and say that they are mistaken. Perhaps that's a bit of a British parliamentary thing, where no MPs are allowed to call each other a liar in Parliament – Winston Churchill famously got round it by using the phrase terminological inexactitude. I'm certain you're sincere, the thing to remember is that we reflect majority expert opinion and, with good sources, minority views in proportion to their prominence in expert views. It's appreciated that you may feel that the science has been defeated, but we must wait until that's reflected in peer reviewed publications. Hope you can get along with that! Anyway, will chat later, dave souza, talk 21:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Using talk pages

Talk pages are not for adversising blog posts. If you have proposals to change articles, or reliable sources to present, do so. Just dumping an unreliable blog post on a talk page, however, needs to stop. I've replaced your blog post with a link to the actual source document. Hipocrite (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you, do not edit my posts again mark nutley (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually removed your post, as opposed to editing it, and then linked to the source that might have been relevent. However, since you insist that I not edit your posts, I've removed your talk page disruption without informing others about what you were trying to convey. Hipocrite (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, you are not to call me a "twat" again. This is your only warning - I'm not sure you even merit that. Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop being a twat then, it is against policy to edit another users posts, do not edit my posts again. mark nutley (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reported your repeated incivility at WP:WQA. Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Like i care mark nutley (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark, in addition to calling me a "little shit," you have also removed my civil talk page comment here. Hipocrite (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I hope you will take this in the spirit it is offered- uncivil edit summaries allow others to change the focus from their behavior to yours.SPhilbrickT 18:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mark, I recommend you apologize regardless of how you feel about H. In this argument (over civility) you have the losing hand. H, I thought you were going to try to be a little more collegial. Your actions on the talk page in question are not what I think most people would consider collegial. --GoRight (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough guys, hoppcrite sorry for calling you a twat and a shite mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry was in a rush, hippocrite i am extremely sorry for my foul language. Your editing of my posts infuriated me and i quite simply lost my temper. again, i am sorry mark nutley (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 24 hours

For edit warring at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. You are aware that you are very likely to be restricted to a 1RR limitation, but still chose to edit war on the page rather than find a consensus. I am aware of the WP:WQA, but am not considering the terminology used, and am disappointed that you allow your anger to dictate your actions. There are reasons why Climate Change related articles are under probation, and your actions are an example of it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Message from User:Hipocrite

Copied here per request at User talk:Hipocrite/02/2010#Or like this —DoRD (?) (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I owe you an apology. When I aggressively attacked your talk page notice this morning, I was in the wrong. I should not have been so aggressive with you, and I basically take responsibility for the entire incident - my bad. I would like to claim substantial RL stress as a mitigating factor, but that's not good enough. I've decided to take a long break from Global Warming on Misplaced Pages - probably to edit some food articles again. I wish you the best of luck and hope someone unblocks the both of us shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Snowcover curve generated from Rutgers data

File:NH-snow.jpg

As you can see the Rutgers data show the same (note the uptick at the end is an artifact of incomplete data) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange, i have seen two other graphs from two different authors which show a different story :) Did you run it for the last 15 years btw? As that is the period in which snow extent has increased? mark nutley (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Its for the whole dataset, no cherry-picking of periods. And as you can see there is nothing special about the last 15 years. A period of 15 years is btw. too short to see climatic changes. Generally the shorter the period, the more natural variability will "overwhelm" a climate signal. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Civility warning

Please strike your comments here William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Fail to see how i am being uncivil william, which part do you find offensive? mark nutley (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty well all of it. The first sentence will do William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You actually think someone saying "get a sense of humour and and a smiley face :) are uncivil? I mean seriously come on, are you having a bad day? mark nutley (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be one of those people that thinks putting a smiley after a remark makes it civil. You're wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#First_test_of_the_glorious_new_policy William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC has clarified at the above section it is the first sentence. My view is that it's removal will not diminish the content of the post, and I will remove it if you do not. I trust that this will be one of your next edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Already done dude mark nutley (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the strikes. It sets a benchmark; so it seems that passing familiarity by way of name or phrase may be challenged - of course it works all ways.
While passing, I would draw your attention that the request regarding you and edit warring was closed without a final decision. I was very strongly promoting that you be held under a 1RR restriction, and would suggest that you should conduct yourself as if you were - because should you edit war again in the near future then you will be. By not edit warring you will make a formal imposition of the restriction pointless. I trust you see the logic... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No problems with either :) thanks mark nutley (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Template:Z9

Here you insert text without consensus at the talkpage; consensus is not unanimity and there was limited support for your suggested text, but there are clearly several good-faith objections which have not been addressed. This is especially important as the article Rajendra K. Pachauri is covered by both the Biographies of living persons policy and the Climate change probation. Here you replace the same text, still without any recognizable consensus at the relevant talkpage and also without any agreement following usertalk discussion with the editor who reverted the addition at the beginning of this paragraph. This is edit warring, and I have blocked your editing access for 48 hours. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|Is this a joke? Since when was doing two reverts over three days edit warring? The text had consensus to be in, it was removed without discussion so i reinserted it. My reinsertion was undone for the wrong reasons I:E that the source was a blog. This was incorrect which i pointed out on the users talk page, i gave him ample time to self revert but he did not. This was not edit warring at all. mark nutley (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): unblock accepted - see below Request handled by: - 2/0 (cont.) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Stated reason for revert of your first re-insertion: inaccurate statements, blog source on BLP, and can't find consensus on talk. discuss. The status of http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/ re WP:RS is not the only expressed concern. Link to usertalk discussion about same. Composite diff showing discussion taking place in the interval between these two edits - no relevant comments were made. The original discussion of your proposed text from the beginning of this month is a bit disorganized so I find the first re-insertion understandable despite important points remaining unaddressed at talk. With the second, however, it is abundantly clear that such objections remain; instead of discussing the issue, you reverted to your preferred version. This is edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|2/0 that composite diff makes no sense to me, it had noting to do with the removed text? However, i would like to be unblocked so i may continue work on an article wip in my sandbox, and to prepare another RFC to get the text back in :) you have my word i will not edit any article in the probation area for the specified period, thank you mark nutley (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): The fact that the composite diff contained no relevant discussion was precisely the point - the issue was not discussed at articletalk before you reinserted the material. Good luck with your WiP and RfC. Request handled by: - 2/0 (cont.) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

You were unblocked on your promise to leave the articles alone (continue work on an article wip in my sandbox, and to prepare another RFC ), which breaks William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please look in the section below, thanks mark nutley (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident

In this section dave has decided to use two blog posts Deltoid Blog from the same blogger to decide The Times of London has a bad reputation and is unreliable, he removed a section from the article based on this. However both the deltoid blogger and Dave are wrong, if either had actually read the link to the article which the blogger had lifted his story from then they would have read the following Update (31 January 2010): Daniel Finkelstein, Executive Editor of the Times of London, informs me that the Times and the Sunday Times are completely different newspapers, with entirely separate teams of staff and editorial policies, which I had not known. It occurs to me that all of my recent personal experiences, as well as Sell’s, have been limited to the Sunday Times. The Times has not written about my work since July 2003, shortly before my arrival in the UK. I therefore do not want to malign the Times unjustifiably. I would urge dave to self revert as his reasons for removing text are based on a false premise. Anyone reading this please let User:dave souza know, thanks mark nutley (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I let DS know about this section. You can do it yourself now, but what the heck, I was here anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, do you mean i ca nlet him know on his talk page or on the article talk page btw? mark nutley (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. I did not intend this unblock to cover anything except the articles themselves. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent mate thanks a lot mark nutley (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mark, have responded on the article talk page. . dave souza, talk 23:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would just ignore that Scjessey, it is a rather nasty comment -- Mark, I'm dismayed. I had thought that a rather decorous way of calling him out. He gets away with far too much ad hominem, don't you think? Oiler99 (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No oiler, you basicly said he was a racist man, thats not on mark nutley (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I IMPLIED that if he had some additional ad hominem epithets at his disposal, he'd be likely to use them. Which I believe is quite possibly true, judging by his history. Oiler99 (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you implied he may be racist, how remiss of me :) It`s still rude though, please consider removing it mark nutley (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Revised statement: No, I didn't. I IMPLIED that if he had some additional ad hominem epithets at his disposal (race being, admittedly, the most unlikely), he'd be able to use them. I'm quite sure, in fact, that he is NOT racist, which makes the point for me, I think. I will consider deleting the comment, though, based on your reaction. Oiler99 (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate that, thank you mark nutley (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

From my talk page reply to you: That is a bit below the belt, accusing someone of racism is flat out wrong mate, would you please delete it? Thanks mark nutley (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was above the belt. I didn't accuse him of racism, merely of stooping to ad hominem rather than effective reply. I thought - rightly or wrongly - that he needed a reminder that the status, gender, race, political affiliation, or philosophical stance of a person was not a satisfactory reason to reject his opinion. Disagree? Oiler99 (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Can you comment on that? Oiler99 (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, ad hom attacks are of course wrong, I suppose i have gotten used to them :) But i feel it was more than a reminder, more a slap in the face with a dead fish :) mark nutley (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was annoyed at his snarky pissy attitude which has been displayed against others and finally against me, and nobody's called him on it. Thought I'd step up to the plate. Dead fish? Minnow, maybe. Nah, not even. And then, there's the cautionary tale of the Mississippi mule, whose attention has to be gotten. I'll restrain myself in the future, though. Thanks, mate. Oiler99 (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just changed your initial post

at Talk:Rajendra_K._Pachauri#Replacing_Removed_Text by these edits . I hope this was OK. Nsaa (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ya man, thanks looks way better like that :) mark nutley (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Nsaa (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Civility warning, again

Don't make edit comments like this William M. Connolley (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What? How is that uncivil? You obviously have issues, please take them elsewere. mark nutley (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

That refers to requests brought after april 12.©Geni 10:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok then what should i do? mark nutley (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

nothing. If there is an issue there is no shortage of other people to report it.©Geni 12:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Probation warning

Please refactor this this comment per this. You are A) assuming bad faith, and B) making personal attacks. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have neither assumed bad faith nor made a personal attack in that diff, please explain how you think i have? mark nutley (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of Cabal behavior (PA and ABF)... Allegations of pushing BLP violations (ABF) I'm surprised that i have to explain. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not make accusations of a cabal kim, i said a bunch of friends, as in like minded people as in AGW supporters, i am sorry you took it as an attack. I will strike it through now mark nutley (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Unwelcome

I'm sure I've said this before, but you are unwelcome on my talk page. If you have anything you need to say there, use a neutral third party William M. Connolley (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No you have not, and if i see you breaking policy again i will post on your talk page again not hang around waiting on another to deliver a message mark nutley (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't reply on his talk page. If it's related to "climate change", post it on the WP:AE Climate Change subboard, as his policy violations are usually in violation of the special enforcement, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok mark nutley (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OOPS, I missed that term of your probation. Please don't violate any of your probation terms, although you are allowed to contact others (but not violating WP:CANVASS) to bring the matter to their attention. For the record, you're welcome on my talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok man, and thanks mark nutley (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

ExxonSecrets

Please do continue to remove ExxonSecrets links from any articles where they are not allowable opinion of the parent organization; they don't even qualify as a reasonable source of courtesy links to real reliable sources, in my opinion, but that has yet to be established by consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is not intended to excuse you from any probation requirements. In Cato Institute, it's also a BLP violation, so you shouldn't be subject to sanction, but remember I've been blocked for edit warring, myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So have I :), although well deserved at that time :-) I`ll keep up with removing exxonsecrets tbh i believe that entire site is a blp violation mark nutley (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please revert your removal of material from articles. On WP:RSN you were told that it was at the very least a valid source of information on the opinion of greenpeace, which remains a notable source of opinion. In the cases where you have removed information I suggest that you go back and change the wording accordingly. Unomi (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No i was not, i brought it to the rs notice board after yillowslime reverted one of the removals. Please get your facts right. Look again on the rs noticeboard please, you see two other editors commenting on this issue mark nutley (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the nature of the WP:BLP concerns, its best to have material removed until verified by multiple sources. PERIOD. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What BLP concerns specifically? Show me the edit which purports to address blp concerns, all I see are edits removing information regarding funding for interest groups. Unomi (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better discussed on the rs notice board? But as you ask, The interest groups you refer to have people working for them, it is them who are named and whose blp`s we need worry about mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is using unreliable sources in any articles, let me know and I'll look into it. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Cla, perhaps you could give your opinon on exxonsecrets as a wp:rs ?

Mark, please self-revert your mass removals. Change the wording to be inline attributed where needed, thanks. Unomi (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. Exxonsecrets is only possibly usable as the view of Greenpeace. It is not a reliable source for any other purpose, or in any context where it does not explicitly state it's the view of Greenpeace. If there are living persons named, it (and the statement) should be removed; otherwise, it should be just tagged as {{incredible source}}, not just {{verify credibility}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that Mark is ignoring context completely (or has been), when he is removing references. For instance here and here (note: i have no idea whether it is appropriate in those articles), where it is specifically attributed as the view of Greenpeace - and removed with the rather strange claim of WP:BLP violation as well. This is not good.

And while i (strangely enough) agree with Mark that 90+% of blog references should be removed from various articles.. I have serious problems with Marks approach to this. Blanket removal of references without any glance at the context in which they are used, and with claims of blp violations without any semblence of such - is not ok. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. Mark needs to look at the context. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise, especially to Mark. However, if the (still being discussed in WT:BLP, I believe) the current actions of real companies are attributed to be the action of real, living, people, then these funding statements are subject to BLP. I'm not sure which way I'm leaning in that discussion, but it is still open. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

While I am myself in favor of strong BLP protection, you can see how arguing that because a company has employees it falls under BLP is a slippery slope. It would lead us to not be able to use sources which criticize any company as they tend to have board members, CEOs and investors who are generally held to be responsible for a companies actions. Unomi (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all Unomi, there is noting wrong with linking to a site which slates a company or think tank. However linking to a site which lists the names of every employed there is just not on, you hear about activists attacking people all the time, i don`t think we should be a part of that mark nutley (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Previous or concurrent accounts.

Hi Mark, could you please state any and all accounts that you have or are using besides this one? Unomi (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Again you assume bad faith. Let me know why you feel the need to know this? And then i`ll tell you my little secret :-) mark nutley (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith, please assume clue. Unomi (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, previous accounts = 0 current accounts = this one. That`s it, i`m quite new here, in fact i was so crap at first i got accused of being scibaby :) i did not even know how to sign my posts, ah old times :-) Now care to tell me why you would assume i am using sockpuppets? mark nutley (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

On reviewing your earliest edits closer I retract my accusation. Apologies, Unomi (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worrys :) mark nutley (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Watts blog article

I think we've compiled about all the sources there are for that article, more than enough. Would you mind formatting them like Kim did in the DeSmogBlog article? That will make it easier to add the references as we arrange the information to get the article ready for posting. I'll add an infobox next chance I get. Cla68 (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally i think you should focus on getting the information correct first. If it had been an article there would now be at least 3 {{verification failed}} on it, and a comment on talk. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there -- good luck on getting this page up and running in Misplaced Pages. It looks like a worthy cause, given the amount of hits the website receives, and the frequency with which it features in the media. I've posted a couple of references to hopefully help things along. Best, Jprw (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the article is ready to be posted yet. Would you give me a couple more days to work on it first? Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Crap, sorry cla i already did , sorry :( mark nutley (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you realized what would happen with an article like that if you didn't have it air-tight before you posted it. That's my fault for not emphasizing this to you beforehand. We'll see what we can do about it, but expect some resistance over every effort we make to change the article from here on out. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that`s just depressing :) Well i found no actual crits of the site so WMC`s pov tag seems pointless mark nutley (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

We can address that. Please leave the draft in your userspace with the list of references and I'll work on the article later today and tomorrow, hopefully. Cla68 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep no worrys, i`m away to bed now, try not to let wmc do to much damage :) mark nutley (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good morning gentleman! I woke up this morning to see the WUWT article up and running, possibly a little prematurely but that doesn't matter now. I've done some copy editing and fixing, the site seems to look a little tighter now, but it still needs much work and referencing. In any case this is a worthy project and long overdue so Mark Nutley's initiative is to be applauded. Jprw (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it did`nt take them long to wreck things did it. I dread to think what will be done to my other article :) mark nutley (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That one really is going to get trashed, and for very good reasons. Error in first sentence that indicates lack of understanding of the subject. 100% synthesis based on old (pre-2000) cherry-picked references (that seem to be slected because they say what you'd like them to say). No hint or even glance that you've bothered to look at any synthesis reports. And i could go on.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you on about kim? I cherry pick nothing i just googled for wattsupwiththat and used those results to create the article. What was the error in the first sentence? mark nutley (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume you were talking about your RWP draft. But don't worry - trashing original research is not something that is limited to the sceptical side of the spectrum. For an interesting read - i'll point you at this rather horrible example - check talk - as well as the different revisions. We tried to help AJL along the learning curve..... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WEll i did the same thing with the rwp article execept i also looked in scholar, tell you what if you have time go through it and were you see a mistake put a note for me, hows that sound? mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark that trouble with that draft is mainly that the only way to save it, is to rewrite it completely. You can't just cherry-pick from Google scholar - that is WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

To er is human

to er is human - well, that settles a long-running discussion about my department dean, thanks. This is intended as a light-hearted comment - your typo made me smile, nothing else. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That is kinda ironic ain`t it :-) You did`nt have to mention it was light hearted mate, it is obviously a josh mark nutley (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why I need an internet-enabled head - I was just wondering the other day where that term comes from, but forgot by the time I was back at a computer. Apparently to josh is an Americanism of obscure origin. I was hoping for something along the lines of c.f. quisling. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not so obscure if you come from Ireland :-) More than likely it got exported to the states along with a few hundred thousand micks lol mark nutley (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Editwarring (2?)

Mark please stop editwarringthis is not acceptable in light of the discussion here. May i remind you that we both are under restrictions? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Kim as you know wp:blp says unreliable sources should be removed on sight, and it is not considered edit warring. Do you honestly think exxonsecrets.org is a wp:rs for a wp:blp? mark nutley (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark, BLP is not as simple as you describe it - and several editors at that page disagree with you. You will have to do standard dispute resolution (BLP/N - with context this time please). Editwarring is not an option. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have taken your advice kim, thanks mark nutley (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm....

Dude, do I call you Mork? Or Marc? Or Murk? Do I need to be more specific? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Look stephen, WMC demands respect, you can`t do that you need to earn it. Since i have come to[REDACTED] all he has done is belittle me at every given chance. If he will not give me the respect and politeness he demands for himself then he will receive none in return. What`s good for the goose and all that. If he can`t handle the occasional "dude" then he requires therapy. You may call me what you like, just don`t call me if your drowning mark nutley (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying you are calling him Dude to be disrespectful? Hipocrite (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No of course not, look here please I used it the same way as millions of people do every day, yet he choose again to needlessly take offence and to be rude. I have had it with his constant crap, from now on he gets what he gives out mark nutley (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you so miss the point. I'm not referring to Dr. Connolley at all. Look carefully at my signature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A crap man, sorry. That`s the german spelling right? I`m used to the irish, i`ll be more careful in future mark nutley (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I know that at least USians have a gene defect that makes spelling my given name impossible... -Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I agree in general that WMC has had an attitude towards you, but on the thread in question you were the one who provoked initially ("do you know noting?") in response to a polite point from him. I realize it's tough to AGF when someone has a history of being condescending and rude towards you, but that doesn't make it OK for you to respond in kind on threads where there is no evidence of hostility.

And the name stuff is silly, but you know about it so why not respect it? WMC is very easy to type, and it's his preferred address, so there's no need for any other address. Also consider that maybe "dude" is as offensive to Brits as "old fruit" is to us. ;-)

In any case, there are a lot of eyes on these pages lately, and if WMC acts uncivilly towards you (unprovoked) I am sure it will be handled better than it has been in the past. There's no need for you to be defensive or aggressive in response to polite discourse from him. ATren (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And by the way Stephan is Stephan not Stephen above which I think was his point (although I think he doesn't mind Steve and Herr Dr Schulz might be more correct for a German). --BozMo talk 20:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ya Bozmo, i got that eventually :-) Never let it be said i`m slow, more at a dead stop :-) mark nutley (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Civility warning

Retract this William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not uncivil, Please do not post on my talk page again, i am fed up of your rubbish mark nutley (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

@Mark. Hmm, hadn't seen that. Certainly you attempting to deal with what you consider disrespect in a retaliatory manner is by its nature escalatory and therefore very unhelpful. That is not going to win you respect, friends or admirers and when I have the time and energy I am pretty I could probably find a prohibition in the probation bit on global warming against what is obviously not constructive behaviour. In the meantime I suggest you consider retracting it. --BozMo talk 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you both remove all the uncivil remarks on that thread. I count 2 comments from each of you which contain uncivil remarks in that thread, and they should all be retracted. ATren (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, mark and WMC both need to start discussing article content without getting personal with each other on article talk pages. Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

@Mark, Please note neither of these last two comments are relevant to mine or addressed I assume to me. This is not nursery school and "retaliation" is not acceptable, especially as a stated principle. --BozMo talk 09:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Kältetote in Peru, Unser Kolumnist enthüllt Al Gores persönliche Klimakatastrophe, (Frozen dead in Peru, Our commentator reveals Al Gores personal climate disaster) by Harald Martenstein, Die Zeit, 13. March 2009
2. The Gore Effect The Washington Times, 4 March 2009
3. Al Gore rains on his party, of Andrew Bolt in The Herald Sun, 17 November 2006
4. Inhofe Blog
5. How Al Gore Saved Christmas, Climateaudit 25. Dezember 2008
6. global Climate Catastrophe Notes, 16 December 2007
7. ^ Tracking 'The Gore Effect', by Erika Lovely, Politico 25.11. 2008
8. The Gore Effect brings snow to New York City, NYDailyNews, Michael Daly, 20. Dezember 2009