Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:12, 17 June 2010

Nguyen

I want to delete those incorrect infomation from the Nguyen article.

This surname is not originally Chinese. So, there is no point to put some Chinese legends here. Plus, there is no way to prove the correctness of some unknown legends. People might have some misunderstandings that 40% Vietnamese are Chinese which is not true. Nguyen is a Vietnamese surname, NO Chinese.

This article is about Nguyen, a Vietnamese surname. So, there is no point to put some notable Ruan people here. List the notable Ruan people in a Ruan article, please. Notable Ruan people has nothing to do with Nguyen article. Ducdung (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC+8)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

I have filed a report for violating the 1RR restriction on this article which you may reply to here. TFD (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I only did one revert, don`t waste peoples time mark nutley (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you have set up a second RfC on this article when the existing RfC covers the same topic? TFD (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It`s not the same, you have reverted reliably sourced material out of the article on spurious grounds, the rfc i have set up is to get community input on the content and if the proposed text is support by the refs mark nutley (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have set up a discussion thread at ANI, you may comment here. TFD (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

While I know that discussions may become heated at times, could you kindly avoid personal attacks in your comments. I refer to the following: "And again you are mistaken.... Do you not actually read the sources?... Your full of crap.... Your kidding right?... And again you are either misreading the ref or are doing so intentionally, I`ll quote the lot for you as you are having such difficulty with it.... read the ref properly please...." None of this elevates the level of discussion and may discourage other editors from contributing. TFD (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

None of those are PA`s, and after explaining to you what was it three times about the book ref and your obvious refusal to understand it what do you expect to be said? Don`t bother to post on my talk page again please mark nutley (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology requested

You wrote: Actually Bozmo the supposed PA was after WMC had taken time out to explain something to TK to which TK responded. William - too long, didn't read. Seems like a fair response from WMC to me after such blatant rudeness mark nutley (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My response: Although your intentions were to defend a peer it is not necessary to judge my character with a personal attack. Please apology for calling me blatantly rude as my comment "too long, didn't read" is legitimate in WP:TLDR. I learned of this phrase when an admin. said it to me today on the talk page. Torontokid2006 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no mark nutley (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of The Gore Effect

I have nominated The Gore Effect, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

mark - why havent you been able to insert the german source? I mean you should have known better and ist a major difference wether an effect is being debated in some right wing nutter magazines or as well in a mainstream liberal german Newspaper. Dont make the work of Big Clima Brother so easy. --Polentario (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can`t speak german mate :) mark nutley (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please. Is my english so damm bad? I gave you the translation on a silver plate and bable fishes exist. maxeiner made even a topic out of Connolleys role with the speedy deletion here and the continued existence in Germany on Achse des guten. --Polentario (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your english is fine mate :) I thought you meant why did i not use stuff from the german gore effect article. Maxeiner? thats a blog right? Unless he is a well know journalist the nit can`t be used and someone has already reverted it out mark nutley (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Martenstein" is not a blog, but it is a "Glosse", i.e. a humorous editorial, not a serious piece of reporting. It's at best useful as a primary source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you really doubting the Gore effect is real? I mean if Martenstein would have done a lengthy factual dossier, like the Zeit did about Nir Shavivs Linking cosmic rays and climate, youre probably supposed by true believers to deny it as well. Please understand - this is a widespread joke and one might accept its appearance in a german Glosse about Gore telling AGW bullshit in Peru while people freeze to death over there as proof for the joke having spread globally. I personally assume its as real as the Pauli effect with the difference that Pauli believed in his. --Polentario (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Mark: I mean Connolleys german article has to be written still. Maxeiner is a sort of medium wellknown author, hes blogging at "Achse des Guten (Axis of good)" together with Henryk Broder (an AAA rated polemic), hes been chief publisher of a eco magazin called "natur" and is now in the field of the bad boys and writing e.g. collumns in Die Welt. --Polentario (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, Polentario. You mean to say that not all Europeans enthusiastically support the theory of man-made global warming? Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We all have to greet the hat matey, but we actually dont care a bloody dam as far as factual policy goes, the age of AGW is gone with the pisces. --Polentario (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, congrats on the article being kept. I didn't think that this topic would ever be allowed to survive on Misplaced Pages. However, what you've written is much better than the one I first posted back in 2008. Matthew Drabik (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ottmar Hitzfeld woud say; Great defensive play and one should not forget to attack now and then. Polentario (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It`s great ain`t it :) pity i can`t use the image i made for it though :) mark nutley (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Send me alink please. Polentario (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

I'm tired of seeing you and Hippocrite bickering back and forth in my watchlist. For the love of god, stop using opinion pieces for statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, as it is correct why not actually look at the refs i provided in the talk page which prove i am right mark nutley (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, they "prove" no such thing... All you've managed to do in that discussion is to reinforce everyone's bad view about you and references. (ie. that you apparently can't differentiate between reliable and unreliable; and between fact and opinion). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Kim are you saying Cornell and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are unreliable sources? mark nutley (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, Lets take the Cornell reference first:

• Do you understand that the coldest day doesn't by necessity fall in the coldest month? In fact ponder this one: The coldest month ever, may not even have had a single record cold day... (averages and instances are not the same)
• Do you understand that there has been more than 58 days that have been significantly(*) colder?

(*) By "significantly" i mean days that were more than 6.8°F colder than Jan 15. ie. who were all below 0°F.

Once you've pondered this - we can go on. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ponder this, use your common sense, if it was one of the coldest januarys on record then obviously the 15th would be rather nippy don`cha think? mark nutley (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Common sense is worth nothing when you are talking statistics. It could have been the warmest Jan 15 in NYC history, and still have been the very coldest January NYC had ever seen. Do remember that AVG(Month) = SUM(Days)/MonthLen - an average tells us nothing about the distribution. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Mike Hulme

Hei Man, I started the German Lemma several months befroe you. Mike sent me his pic, which has been erased from commons by the enemy. Cant you have a look what others do? I mean from my scientific experience, I know that for limeys nocthing exists, which has not been published in english but... --Polentario (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Whats the German Lemma? Did you e-mail Hulmes response to your request to the permissions guys? That is usually enough. BTW I`m a mick, not a limey :) mark nutley (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to abuse you, ok, and I did. Ah a lemma is greek for Encyc entry, guess who wrote de:Mike Hulme. I did, i got a mail from Mike and sent it. CTRS didnt accept it. Lets assume someone from Big Warming Conspiracy was behind it. :) --Polentario (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Voila de:William Connolley Ever heard of? --Polentario (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe i know the name yes :) mark nutley (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Misplaced Pages.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please try to address content not editors .... or do an enforcement request.

... These do not belong on article talk. If you have a problem with my reverts (i haven't counted), then i suggest doing an enforcement or 3R complaint. Please refactor.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that i'm aware that with the twitter thing i was over (although i'm not aware by how much) 3R - which is why (as said) i was marking this as a BLP revert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not supposed to use BLP as an excuse to bypass WP:3RR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not using it as an "excuse" - i genuinely believe that there is a BLP violation there, and thus that it must per WP:BLP be removed. Do please read our policies carefully. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you genuinely believe there were BLP violations, that's fine, but the way you phrased your previous post made it sound otherwise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Check my comments on the talk-page during the reverts - as well as the talk-page of the user i reverted, and you'd find that i actually did what i could. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Claiming BLP were none exists is spurious Kim, it is not a BLP article it is an article about an expression, i had no intention of bringing an RFE i was just letting you know you had broken 3r`s mark nutley (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All articles that involve living people are subject to WP:BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not an article about a person, if what you say is correct then the vast majority of articles in the CC area fall under BLP as they all reference living people. This is not the case of course, there is no blp issue here, just the one being made up to remove content mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

First line in the BLP page - "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page." Ravensfire (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying al gore was in a place when the weather was crap is not a blp violation. Putting a blp tag on an article talk page which is not a blp is also wrong. For instance Kim claims blp for this edit however it is from a post al gores own site, and repeated by the national review, there is no blp issue there. He removed this twice btw. That`s removing stuff using blp as an excuse mark nutley (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cite error:

Ok so "Cite error: <ref> tag with name "Marowits_2009-11-02_NBBJ" defined in <references> is not used in prior text; see the help page. Cite error: <ref> tag with name "Chivian_2007-10-16_NYT" defined in <references> is not used in prior text; see the help page." is OK?  ??? Nsaa (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Crap no, that`s banana removing that letter to the editor, but macks text is good, lets try to save it ya mark nutley (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem with that :-) Nsaa (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the added content have no refs. It should be added . Nsaa (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of those refs can be found in the first ten or so refs in the article mark nutley (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

your Al Gore image

That image belongs on imageshack and not on Misplaced Pages. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I still think it`s funny though :) mark nutley (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict

you beat me to it. Was just about to undo Polargeo (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool, that`s good to know, we all get frustrated mate, go have a beer and chill for a bit :) mark nutley (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. will do :) goodnight Polargeo (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

1rr

Aren't you on 1rr? Do you think that 16:15, 16 June 2010 and 13:55, 17 June 2010, both reverting the addition of Confirmation bias and Cherry picking less than 24 hours apart is yet another violation of your 1rr restriction? Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Self reverted, got the time wrong, thanks mark nutley (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your revert did not reinclude the two see-also links. Hipocrite (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Further, do you intend to discuss those see-also links on talk, or merely remove them every 24 hours? Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just remove them, they are only there to be pointy, cherry picking has bugger all to do with the gore effect mark nutley (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If you want to remove those see-also links, please discuss on the article talk page before reverting again, where I will happily make my reasoning clear. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Civility warning

This is incivil and should be struck William M. Connolley (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Q

Do you consider I will give my word to be civil at all times from this moment on. This will mean if i`m insulted or other crap is chucked my way i will get up, go for a fag and then respond. binding? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry what? Am i under a civility parole or not? And yes my word is good, I do not think saying to someone they are full of crap is a personal attack. I am a builder, that`s kinda how we talk to each other, now saying, fuck off you wanker or i`ll cave your fucking head in, that`s an attack. You obviously come from a fer more genial background than I mark nutley (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)