User talk:DarknessShines2/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Nature article for Hide the decline video

Mark, if you need approval for the new source you found[1], you have mine. It's a news article so it counts as a third-party reliable source. Just remember to say what the article says, nothing more, nothing less. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As the article now resides in your userspace then i do not require source approval, anything i add will be vetted by you i assume :) mark nutley (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to have someone give approval anyway. No, I wouldn't make that assumption. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

I'm sorry to see that you don't want to try to clear up the question of your adding sources [2] to LS by peaceful discussion [3]. Therefore I notify you of [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could try clearing this [5] up without an enforcement request. You're claiming a BLP exemption to your 1RR parole on the grounds that the refs can't be read. But they can be read: by people that read German. You can't claim an exemption merely because *you* are unable to read them. Please self revert William M. Connolley (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Then it belongs on the german wiki not the english one, per wp:v and wp:blp if a source can`t be verified it has to be removed from a blp immediately. Am i wrong in this interpetation? In fact i shall ask my parole officer mark nutley (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. Foreign language sources are acceptable, although English ones are preferred if available. See WP:NONENG. That said, in this case I agree that the source had to be stretched beyond breaking point to support the claims in the article. In particular, it mentions Avery's son much more than him (and neither that much). But note that I had no problem to verify that... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes as a german speaker you would have no problems, not so easy for those of us whom do not speak german. But as you say it is a moot point given the source was in your opinion also not right mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a moot point. Foreign language sources are acceptable! That's long-standing Wikipedia policy. That the source also was misused is an independent problem. On another note, it's probably easier to learn e.g. German than to learn the maths and physics necessary to understand any advanced physics paper... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a moot point, please see the article talk page, thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of the edit conflict tag

Your continued placement of the {{ec}} tag as you did here disrupts talk page discussions. Please see Help:Edit_conflict to understand when and how you should indicate there is an edit conflict. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Your clear COI against Connolley has been brought up at AN. Who are you to challenge WMC's knowledge of what's reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.174.211.197 (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it disrupted? Looks fine to me, IP guy what are you on abour mark nutley (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Mark, you should place the tag at the start of our comment, just like I do in this comment. The indentation looks messed up when you place it on the line before your comment. And consider using "(ec)" of "(edit conflict)" instead of "{{ec}}". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I see, ok my bad, I`ll try to remember that, thanks Enric mark nutley (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Here. I'm not sure that it merits a response right now. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP that posted the complaint has been blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

1RR parole

You've broken your 1RR parole on RC. Please self-revert William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

NOR notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding original research. The thread is Climate Change Exaggeration. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding removal of POV templates. The thread is Removal of POV templates.The discussion is about the topic Mass killings under Communist regimes. Thank you. --TFD (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

New source

Mark, this source is fine for the Hockey Stick Illusion article. Cla68 (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. So it is OK to use an opinion article that (amongst others) states that identifiable living persons as "lying, destroying data"? And calls 4 official inquiries into this as "rigged" and an NAS report "rigged" as well. In fact it is basically conspiracy talk - but don't let that disturb you - because it does tell us that Montford's book is way out in the fringes - since McIntyre most certainly won't agree with even 20% of the claims that this opinion article states that Montford's book tells us. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've used that column as a source in the book and Montford articles. If you have any specific objections to either of my edits, please state so on the respective article talk pages. Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Tags Again

You may wish to re-open the case. That was not my understanding of the resolution and it may be helpful to re-visit the issue since we interpret ut differently. TFD (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure how you can interpret this differently restore them only if you can provide clear reasons for doing so on the article's talk page; other than the way it is written, however i posted on the closing admins talk page a while ago to seek clarification mark nutley (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Dog bites - even in the uk

Go to the hospital, now. Take the dog - it will likley need to be put down. Contrary to public opinion in the UK, there is rabies there. Hipocrite (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I know, we were in the hospital all day, she is getting surgery tomorrow. I have already shot the dog, and thank you mark nutley (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I hope things go well with her tomorrow. Terrible. I hope you have the good sense to stay away from here for a while, especially during this time of conflict, because there are bound to be things that rile you up, and you don't need that right now. It's just an encyclopedia after all, despite how much effort we put into making it right. ;-) Good luck. ATren (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I need to do something to keep my mind off of it, so it`s WP or getting drunk :), i`ll be fine just nosing about, thanks mate mark nutley (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this: try just reading Wikipedia for a change. I do that sometimes -- I have an interest in learning about obscure, remote locations, so I'll scan Google Earth for some remote island in the middle of the ocean, and invariably there will be a Wikipedia page on it, usually with photos. I can then spend hours following links describing the island's history and neighbors. It's amazing how much information is contained here. Whatever your interest, you can usually find something on it. Or, if that fails to keep your interest, you can always buy Plants vs Zombies, easily the most addicting game I've played in a long time. ;-) Anyway, good luck tomorrow. ATren (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Probation violation

Please see: [6]. Mark may I advise you not to touch sourcing for a while? It is clear that you are struggling to keep to the letter of the probation and everyone is getting fed up. Steer well clear I suggest. --BozMo talk 09:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok mate, thanks for the heads up mark nutley (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A defense

Mark. Just a bit of explanation here. Those who stand out from the crowd are bound to bear the brunt of scrutiny. Do not attack people who stand out as such. Alternatively, embrace them. The unusual nuances of liberty are something wikipedia must deal with daily. As such, we must deal with such discrepancies as regular occurences. Contrary to education, people ARE born good. Biology, as it were, is RIGHT. Do not discourage innovation. Do not threaten "young ones". We at wikipedia are democratic Jeffersonian idealists. If you want to promote "other" ideals, move to North Korea.71.12.74.67 (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Judith Curry

Mark, did you ever e-mail Judith Curry about the impersonation thing? Did she reply back? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes i mailed her and pointed her the the conversation on the rsn board. I also told her the guy was sorry for what he had done. She did not reply though, I reckon it`s best to let it go now mark nutley (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

She probably thinks we're all crazy. And she's probably right. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC and reverts

Mark if that is the case please provide me with a link. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I requested a explanation from WMC but I have not received a decent explanation, as regards reporting parole violations, where do I report them? Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement

Since you have, again, defamed a living person by placing false information on their biography, I've requested enforcement to stop you from doing this again. Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Marknutley_again. Hipocrite (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Erm?

With regards to your comment on ArbCom. If you by now, despite several warnings, and a direct enforcement for bad-sourcings. Aren't aware that just looking at the names of references isn't enough - then you are really digging yourself a hole.... (you also apparently ignored everything else in Verbals edit-comment - which also doesn't speak well...).

Reminder: Verify the text against the references. Reliability depends on context primarily. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Watson article incident

A Quest for Knowledge and I compiled relevant diffs into a sortable table to make it easier for reviewers. The information is contained here

I am notifying those who made reference to the incident on the evidence page, specifically, SBHB, Minor4th, GregJackP, mark nutley and Hipocrite. Did I miss anyone?--SPhilbrickT 19:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Already saw it thanks, you have missed WMC mark nutley (talk)

Pmanderson

I've started a draft RFC in my userspace User:OpenFuture/Request_For_Comment/Pmanderson. If we can show that at least two users have tried to resolve the issue (so we need one more except me) we can file it. I did unfortunately file a Mediation request just earlier today, as per Chasers request, so we might have to wait for a response on that one first. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The RFC is posted: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pmanderson Please sign it under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". --OpenFuture (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Done mate mark nutley (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Marknutley/The institute

Hi! Per your request I've deleted User:Marknutley/The institute. Do you also want User talk:Marknutley/The institute to be deleted? (I presume so, but need to confirm before I go ahead). TFOWR 14:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes please, sorry i should have tagged it`s talk page as well. mark nutley (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done TFOWR 15:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers man mark nutley (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries! TFOWR 15:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Please use the talkpage

mark. please use the talkpage. i will tell Verbal this aswell Polargeo (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What talkpage mate? mark nutley (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Watts bio Polargeo (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, DarknessShines2. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Come on please...

... introducing [7] which is (1) a separate occasion (2) contains no PA (3) is written civily BUT (4) contains a request you know you can ignore for you not to engage in particular discussions isn't really very reasonable of you. Not that your complaint about it is fair, just introducing it into this is not. I think it is a good time for everyone to be demonstrating that they can be more reasonable than their antagonist not less reasonable. It is starting to look like a scene out of Asterix in Corsica. On top of which each RFE is using a lot of admin time reading and considering them and the high court is not for people who steal cans of baked beans. --BozMo talk 19:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bozmo, if you feel telling another editor to not bother contributing is not an attack then fair enough, I do request you inform the editor in question that any further accusations of being a proxy will be met with a block. He is on a civility parole, one he fails spectacularly to uphold and gets off scot free far to often. He needs to be told. no more. mark nutley (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, whatever they're asking you to do, just go ahead and do it. Compromise is a two-way street, and everyone seems to have forgotten that our purpose here is to write articles, not endlessly argue back and forth and accomplish nothing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I respect Bozmo, and he has helped me out quite a bit when i mess up, I have done as he requested and closed the RFE mark nutley (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mark, I appreciate it. I do and will exchange views with WMC about how he treats other editors. You appreciate I have got as far as blocking him for PAs on his own talk page [8] but precedent of an Arbcom ruling went against me. --BozMo talk 20:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(snik) Who are you saying is from Corsica? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not from kim, in Asterix in Corsica It`s a pretty crappy comic :) mark nutley (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I know Mark - and i rather disagree. The (snik) was the knife unfolding.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha, are you making me an offer i can`t refuse :) mark nutley (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been such a long time since I have read tales of The Gaul. I checked our article, and it amazed me to learn that they are still making new ones! NW (Talk) 20:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I read them all in French when I was posted to manage in Francophone Africa in 1993. I think the puns work better in French. But the sequence when the Corsican is trying to pick a fight with a young legionary which escalates "you like my sister?" "you don't like my sister?" "you like my sister?" etc is very fine in either language. --BozMo talk 20:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I read a long story about the translation into Danish, G&U didn't just accept any translation... They had to be translated into the language of choice first, and then independently translated back into French, so that G&U could review whether the translation lost significantly. Unfortunately i'm rather bad at French, so i've only read them in Danish... but fortunately the Danish versions have been nominated the best translations several times. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't really been the same since Goscinny passed away. But they are true classics. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Image

this looks an awful lot like this. You sure you want to claim you created this all by yourself? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I did, i never even saw that one before, i can upload the diffuse and normal map`s to image shack if you want proof that i modeled it mate mark nutley (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You "modelled" it? I don't really understand the technical side of what you appear to be describing here, but can I ask, on the basis of what original image data did you work? Did you go to the museum and took your own photograph of the object or not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I used this as a background image to model the shape [9] I made the model and texture`s using that as the base. It`s actually quite simple, i`ve been creating models for about 10 years and will be using this particular one in a game i am working on. If you check the image dimensions you will see there is no way it is the same btw, I cropped the render but it was 2048x2048 beforehand mark nutley (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, then that's still a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph. Sorry, no way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

How is using a background image as a guide to create a model a copyvio? None of the origanel picture is in there. Are you seriously telling me it is against the rules to create a model using a background image? All modelers use background images, that`s how it works mark nutley (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems like your source is a smaller copy of FP's source. Mark, it does not matter if you recompute every pixel, or even redraw it by hand. There still is a good chance that this is a derivative work under copyright law, just like a photo of a statue is, or a recording of a musical score. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Well it`s not a copy of FP`s source at all, i never even saw that one :( But if using a background image is creating a derivative then i suppose it`ll have to go. Which is a shame as i spent an hour creating the mesh :( mark nutley (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It's a derivative work on the basis of a copyrighted photograph. I don't know how exactly you and your computer software did it, but the net effect is an almost slavish reproduction. If you went and just drew it by hand copying from the original photograph, the result would be very much the same, and it would also count as a derivative. – Nominated for deletion now (I'd actually speedy it, except that I don't take admin action in this topic area). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If it did not look the same then i would not be a very good modeler :), speedy it if you want, i doubt anyone will take it against you mark nutley (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

To Save Bozmo ever more Grief
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. NW (Talk) 22:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I am not even going to bother, what i did was right. mark nutley (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I really suggest that you read some of SirFozzie's recent posts. NW (Talk) 22:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Nuke, i don`t care. What was being inserted was a gross blp violation. It was inserted for the sole purpose of denigrating Monckton. Chris had already said it was grossly undue, yet inserted it anyway. That entire Abram`s thing was wrong, he even had to cut it after monckton first complained as it was so full of errors. Do as you will, in this case i know for a fact what i did was correct. Might i ask if those who reverted contentious and disputed text into a BLP are also blocked? mark nutley (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC) No, because a) it wasn't a BLP violation, b) they did not break an edit warring parole, and c) they did not signify their intent to continue edit warring even past that. NW (Talk) 22:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Mark, I tried to fix the problems that editors had identified - i.e. that the sourcing was poor (which I agree with) and that the wording was POV (which I agree with). I replaced the sourcing with the sources that NW and BozMo had identified, and changed the wording to describe neutrally what both sides had said. I've never said at any stage that I thought the para was grossly undue, or any words to that effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Chris do not post here again, I will not have discourse with a man who breaks his word. NW Chris0 and willy most certainly did edit war given what had been said on the talk page, and at the RFE, knowing it was highly disputed text chris inserted it, i reverted it, willy put it back even though he knew it was disputed text in a BLP, i revert under a blp exemtion, chris reverts me,knowing it was contentious text and it was already disputed. That is edit warring on all sides, at least on my part i had good reason for reverting, what was theirs? mark nutley (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Hey Nuke, have you read that block template? It`s kinda funny really. Let`s go through it. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes Well this had been discussed to death on the talk page and was considered a blp vio minimum and grossly undue. seek consensus Hmm, i would say consensus was against inclusion of said text given what was said Here Here and Here what else is there, it may be appropriate to request page protection Well fuck me i did that as well [10] Still think this was a good block? Course you do mark nutley (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Mark, forget it. They refuse to acknowledge their own biases, and they have the power. I've already decided I'm done with this after the case concludes, no matter what the decision. If Monckton or Singer or Solomon have a problem with the way they're being treated here, let him deal with it. It's not worth my time anymore. I hope you do the same because it's just not worth it. By the way, how is your daughter? I hope all went well. ATren (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris0 Full of it

I don't see anyone objecting on undue weight grounds in the earlier discussion. Says chris as he runs around all sweetness and light, but yet a few days ago he says in response to me Under british law he is reliable as the rest of the telegraph, you know that, but if we can`t have his rebuttal then the Abraham piece should go as undue i reckon mark nutley (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC) It probably should, actually - did it get much media attention? I only read about it on blogs, I don't recall seeing wider coverage of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Funny how people forget stuff ain`t it mark nutley (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, the entirety of what I said was: "It probably should [be removed], actually - did it get much media attention? I only read about it on blogs, I don't recall seeing wider coverage of it." [11] I took your word for it that it was "Mostly a blog thing" [12] and didn't look any further. However, your statement turned out to be wrong (I'm not blaming you for that, we all make mistakes) since at least three editors subsequently found media coverage. As it had received coverage in reliable sources that changed the way we have to approach it. I didn't participate in the subsequent editorial discussion about the Abrahams content, but I agree that it had problematic sourcing and wording. My rewrite was aimed at fixing those problems. As far as I can see nobody raised the issue of weight in that discussion so I didn't think it was a problem. I'm sorry if you felt otherwise. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think those few sources give it weight and one of those being monboit then you are a bigger fool than i thought. Given your insistence at the Pachauri article when twenty or so sources were presented over his COI and requests to resign that you actually had the gall to say that was undue, and now say this is ok? Chris, you may reply to this, but after do not post here again. I will not have discourse with a dishonest man mark nutley (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, i have been in your shoes, and feel your pain. the fastest way to fix wp is using the sources they present, then show how they are flawed. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Request For Unblock

I have been blocked for edit warring, however i claimed a BLP exemption and this was ignored. Here is the text i removed.

• In response to Monckton's 2009 appearance at a symposium sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute, University of St. Thomas professor of thermal engineering John Abraham prepared a 73-minute slide show titled A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton. Writing in The Guardian, Abraham described how he had systematically checked Monckton's claims but found that "none of the authors or papers made the claims that Monckton attributed to them", in what Abraham described as a "chronic" pattern of misrepresentation.[35] Monckton issued a 99-page response asking Abraham almost 500 questions. As well as accusing him of malice, Monckton demanded that Abraham remove his critique from the web, print an apology and retraction and provide a compensatory payment of $110,000.[36]

• The bolded text is an external link [13] to an SPS which is not allowable under BLP.

• The reference used to for Abraham`s is an OP-Ed [14]. This is not a decent source for a BLP

My actions were in full compliance of wp:blp and the fact that i was blocked for it is wrong. I would also like to know why the two editors who inserted Self Published Content into a BLP have not been brought to book.

Mark, don't go to AN/I. He's baiting you. ATren (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Um hasn't this block expired? --BozMo talk 21:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

NW's post above was made at 22:26, 21 July 20. It's going to expire in less than an hour. If my math is correct, MN should withdraw this request and just wait until it expires. No need to waste the admin's time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I think that reverting hoping BLP will protect you is a dangerous game in any circumstances. Plenty of admins think RR is a bright line whereas BLP is a bit more subjective. Personally, as I said, I think that presentation should not have been linked to directly and I probably wouldn't have blocked you for it. But there were other people to do the reverts if needed and you shouldn't have carried on hoping to be given benefit of BLP. ChrisO was not doing straight reverts he was varying and trying to find the correct text. A better unblock appeal might be to point out that the article is full protected and so the block redundant... --BozMo talk 21:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiding an external link to an SPS is a blp breach. I acted with good faith and in compliance with WP BLP policy. Nuke should not have blocked me. mark nutley (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It should not be a "dangerous game"; it's what we're supposed to do. Some have forgotten that. Mark was a victim of an overzealous admin who doesn't understand BLP. Mark was the only one following policy and he got blocked for it. Hopefully arbcom will correct this with principles and/or sanctions. In the meantime, Mark, see the advice I gave on my talk page. ATren (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You could be right but as I see the politics BLP comes from the top and RR comes from the community. Arbcom would rule in favour of BLP but most admins on the street see RR as more important. --BozMo talk 06:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Milloy + UCS

Mark, you may want to check the actual report instead of the press-release for the report. At least one of the items you've removed is clearly documented in the Report. Why people chose to link to the press-release is strange - but the correct thing is not to remove the text/link - but to correct the link. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Im just following the refs kim. If they go to dodgy sources then blp says rip them out. I also found a lot of content sourced to the UCS, none of which was supported by the reference. Pretty bad what has happened to that BLP mark nutley (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, its a good thing to clean up BLP's - good for you. But you need to go a bit beyond "Its a dodgy source", and look at context. The content sourced to the UCS is to the report, please verify against the report. You will find that your "none of which was supported by the reference" is literally true - but contextually wrong. Don't just act - think! :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Kim. the link to the UCS article did not mention milloy once, not the group he was meant to have worked for which was described as "A Front". If you have a link to the report please post it, however it would be a primary document and not usable mark nutley (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course i have a link to the report - all you have to do is search for it[15], iirc the press-release previously linked to the report. Primary documents are usable - it depends on what kind of document it is, for instance science papers are (while primary) entirely usable. But whether this is a primary document - is another discussion entirely. Is there anything on Talk:Steven Milloy? (which i assume that you checked first?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope i did not check talk, i was just doing busy work. It is not a science document, the UCS is an adcovacy group and it is making statements of fact about a person. Were a person gets funding is not a science question. We can discuss it on the article talk page if you have an issue with me removing possible blp breachs from the article mark nutley (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You are near violation of 3RR. BigK HeX (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Tactic alert

Re: the evidence talk page: Mark, when they ignore your arguments and twist your words, they are trying to get you to respond, so that the thread gets buried under a sea of argumentative comments and your point is lost. I've seen those same editors do it a hundred times. You are in the right here, others are aware of it, I am considering filing an RFC on NW if the arbs don't deal with him, so just relax. Don't respond anymore, especially there. ATren (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

look and learn

Mark, please try and learn something from your little block

BLP and undue is not a get out of jail free card for edit warring when the content was as in this case.

If someone added, to a BLP, I was f**k**g him in the *** last night my name is jo**y V***s - that is a BLP exempt removal...undue is never an excuse or safety net for repeatedly reverting.

Your block was good for four clear reverts.

Instead of removing it repeatedly you should have gone to the talkpage and took your time and clearly laid out and explained your problems with the content and in the end the community would have come to the same conclusion as they have now that the addition of the SPS was against policy, same result but with no block for you.

Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

agree please lay low for now, and come back to us asap Mark. a fan of your edits Darkstar1st (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Rob, the reason for my reverting was because the external link to the SPS had already been agreed on as a blp violation on three different forums. I was so surprised to see chris had gone and put it in again, but hidden it as an inline external link i reacted automaticly to remove it my mistake was in saying it was undue and not a blp problem. It does not matter now i suppose, i`m going ot get topic banned from the CC articles by arbcom, i`m sure the guys can have plenty of fun with the sceptic BLP`s with nobody watching :( mark nutley (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, there is no doubt you did what is right. And actually, to counter what Rob said, from the encyclopedia's standpoint this situation is even more problematic than simple vandalism. Everyone who acted to add or retain that content (NW, WMC, ChrisO) did so with full knowledge of the contentious nature of it, so contentious that there were lawyers involved. That is practically exhibit "A" of what should be removed immediately to protect both the person and the project.

Furthermore, in this particular case, at least one political opponent was inserting this material, with the other two protecting him despite knowing all the implications... this was much more significant a problem then, say, simple vandalism by an IP. You were absolutely right to remove it, even if it went in 10 times.

But even though you absolutely did the "right" thing, I really wish you hadn't, because at this point I care more about you and your reputation than I do about this project, which has actively allowed this kind of partisan garbage to go on for so long and frankly deserve whatever they get. If you hadn't done the right thing, you wouldn't have been blocked, and the very powers who have created this toxic environment would not be able to use this admirable action against you, a tactic which I find despicable. ATren (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

stop reverting I will revert you

ArbCom Evidence

If you refer to me on arbcom pages to which I am not a party, in future could you please notify me. Also, could you pleas amend your evidence. You state " Which were Verbal`s false edit summary (stating NASA and The Guardian) were not reliable sources". This is not true, I said the material was not supported by the sources (which you manage to quote). Please strike, remove or amend. Verbal chat 16:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought everyone knew about it sorry for giving you a heads up. However your edit summary was Material is not well sourced and is UNDUE / unbalanced. Take to talk please Explain how that is not saying the sources are unreliable? mark nutley (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm said that the material wasn't supported by the sources (in my opinion), not that the sources were unreliable (I made no comment on that). Thank you for being reasonable. This could be resolved by providing the direct quote. Verbal chat 19:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have altered the text [16] to ensure that it was my mistake over your edit summary. The full quote was already there btw mark nutley (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Unproductive editing at Mass Killing

Are you going to explain why exactly you reverted 9 policy-explained edits with a whimsical and non-policy-based reasoning? BigK HeX (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Explained it in the edit summary, massive changes without consensus, the article is just to much of a battleground for such bold changes mark nutley (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I will ask one last time for WHAT POLICY you are basing your edit on. Every single one of my 9 edits was attached to a clearly explained policy. "Not going through consensus" is NOT a justification, and a direct contradiction of WP:BOLD. BigK HeX (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually if an editor disagrees with BOLD then bold does not apply. Polargeo (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagreeing with BOLD due to an actual policy objection is fine. He lists NONE. He performs a huge revert of 9 well-reasoned edits, including even minor stuff like one edit which flagged material, pretty clearly indicating he didn't even examine the edits, and that he just contentiously performed a blanket revert. BigK HeX (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You need no policy to object to bold additions. In fact WP:BOLD states "Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, usually painlessly. It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further." Polargeo (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Major changes to a contraversial article should be cleared on the talk page. If you go ahead and make bold changes that are then challenged then nobody is blaming you for the changes simply the fact that they have been challenged should send you straight to the discussion page. Polargeo (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it fairly amazing that you haven't YET suggested that Marknutley initiate any discussion of his blanket reversion of those 9 edits. BigK HeX (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason is fairly clear. A blanket revert of your many WP:BOLD edits (as you have called them) should send those edits to the discussion page. So I advise you to go there and discuss. Polargeo (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The revert itself should have already have prompted a talk page attempt. There's evidence that this is understand to be "common practice." BigK HeX (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Big Hex. You are going down a path to nowhere. Your edits were extensive so discuss them and stop wasting your time trying to criticise a single revert. Polargeo (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't own an RFC

Try this out for starters

If you can't work collaboratively on Wikipedia, you shouldn't be here. End of story. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you edit other peoples comments in defiance of policy you should not be here mark nutley (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template". How is "Which is what the controversy is known as" neutral? Are you using a different definition of neutrality than everyone else? Come on, Mark, think! Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your right and i apologise, i should have taken more care mark nutley (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. If you want to make a good argument, try to meet and address the objections raised by Scjessey and other editors. If you can do that, chances are you might gain some support. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

1RR on mass killings under Communist regimes

Your recent edit there violated 1RR restriction. I suggest you self-revert it. (Igny (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC))

Nope, i`m not seeing it mate mark nutley (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a second revert in 24 hours, isn't it? (Igny (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC))

No, are you perhaps thinking of the edit were i removed unsourced content which had been tagged for over a month? mark nutley (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I partly agree with Mark here on the edit. This text should not just be added back in with citation needed tag and all. Someone said a citation was needed, nobody addressed this issue. Then when the text was removed someone added it back in citation needed tag and all which was poor. However, Mark this is still a revert. It is a revert of this edit and this edit on Friday Polargeo (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok i put it back tag`s and all, seems pointless and petty that i have to wait to remove uncited content as that usually falls under normal editing o well mark nutley (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Mark, I do not think that your edits violated 1RR and therefore would not block you for your edits to that page. NW (Talk) 13:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Nuke, i`ll go self revert the uncited content back out then mark nutley (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark. I agree with your edit I was just warning you to be more careful. Polargeo (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop

Mark, you are "prohibited from introducing a new source to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing." Who did you clear your various search-sources with, and where were they cleared? Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already been told WUWT is an ok source for information about WUWT. Whats your problem? mark nutley (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are "prohibited from introducing a new source to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing." Who did you clear your various search-sources with, and where were they cleared? Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of you have a point. Did the original stricture mean every edit must be approved by another contributor, or every new source? It could be read either way. I don't recall who wrote the rule, it might make sense to ask them.--SPhilbrickT 13:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I will defend Mark on these additions. He added no text but was simply trying to source existing text. Yes the sources were not up to scratch but it would be very very harsh to penalise mark on this. I also take personal responsibility here because I requested the sources. Polargeo (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful

Mark, you just accidentally created a second copy of the entire RFC on the CRU controversy talk page. I've removed the duplication but I may have lost any comments you added. Could you please check? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

They all seem to be there, how did i manage that? mark nutley (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No idea, maybe there was an edit conflict? You created a second duplicate RFC following the first one. Anyway, it's all fixed now, so no worries. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to the Pat Robertson controversies article

Here, you removed sourced information with the edit summary "remove TruthOrFiction.com wp:blp and the coatrack that went with it" BUT TruthOrFiction.com is not present in the section you removed at all. Here, you do the same thing again. TruthOrFiction.com is not present there at all. I'm trying to assume good faith, here, but it does look odd. I'm going to be examining each edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please check all the edits, if i have made an error in an edit summary sorry. But the amount of coatrack and poorly sourced content is pretty bad mark nutley (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		for trying to prevent Wikipedia from being used to promote a single POV about Climategate. GregJackP Boomer! 23:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man :), my first one mark nutley (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

i predict admin is next, congrats mark! Darkstar1st (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

BarbaricSocialistZealots

Think of BSZ (aka Karmaisking) as the Scibaby of Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. He can be extremely subtle at times, but usually his bombastic and caustic nature comes out and betrays him. I had suspicions from his early posts, but reading his later posts just confirmed it. It probably would be a decent race between Kik and Scibaby as to who can create and run the most socks in a given period. Ravensfire (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That`s nuts, you think they`d find something better to do really, what an incredible waste of time and effort :) mark nutley (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The BLP Barnstar
		Awarded to Marknutley, for taking a stand against the use of derogatory self-published sources in biographies of living persons. JN466 22:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man, nice to know i don`t just create havoc around here :) mark nutley (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished. ;) --JN466 19:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sections

I find multiple sections confusing too but I am not the one who opened them, just the first to comment. TFD (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

O sorry mate, was it BK then? I`ll ask him to hold off in creating more, sorry about that mark nutley (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

TruthOrFiction

How come it can't be used in a BLP? It's not user generated, it's staff examines each claim, I don't see how it violates WP:RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at that website? Get the truth about rumors, inspirational stories, virus warnings, hoaxes, scams, humorous tales, pleas for help, urban legends, prayer requests, calls to action, and other forwarded emails There is no about us, no sign of editorial control, it`s a junk gossip site run by god only knows who. Please do not use it again. mark nutley (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

From the "About Us" section on TruthOrFiction.com: "Every story on TruthOrFiction.com has either been personally researched by the TruthOrFiction.com staff or, in some cases, is known to be a classic rumor or urban legend that has stood the test of time. As much as possible, the sources of our information are included in the stories."

"We try to research our stories as carefully as we can and to use sources that are as reliable as possible, but there can be times when our information is incomplete, out of date, or even wrong. We welcome corrections and additions, especially if you have first-hand knowledge of anything we need to know."

"The founder and operator of TruthOrFiction.com is Rich Buhler, a broadcaster, speaker, author, broadcast journalist, and producer who has researched and written about rumors and urban legends for more than 30 years.

Because of both his knowledge about what he terms "eRumors" and his broadcast background, Rich is a popular guest on radio and television and has appeared on national and international outlets including on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, Fox News, BBC, CBC, as well as local television and radio stations from Maryland to California. He has also either written, or been featured in, numerous newspaper and magazine articles."

There IS an about us section, there ARE signs of editorial control. It wasn't that hard to find it, I just went to the main page, looked for a menu (on the left), and looked through it (glancing at the top and then starting with the bottom, as "about us" sections tend to be at either at the top or bottom of a menu). Do you have any actual justification for not including it now? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done for finding it, i sure as hell did not see it anywere. As for not using it yes, is is self published mark nutley (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ian.thomson has already explicitly quoted that the information is NOT self-published. BigK HeX (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's a non-issue now, I've found two sources noone can object to. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Illusion

Sorry again for hogging it all. Please add the Dutch source. I'll help with the citation after you add it. The Dutch one appears to be a neutral review of the book, judging from the poor translation that Google translation gave me. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I was joshing mate :) but i`ve added it now three in one day, pretty good going mark nutley (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much any of the three book reviews are fine sources for an article on the particular book. Issues of weight may need to be considered if you have selectively chosen the best reviews but other than that no problem. Cla's comment that the Geolsoc magazine review is only valid for Geolsoc's own opinion is completely wrong, it is not even valid for the opinion of the geolsoc just as the other two reviews are equally not valid for the opinions of Quadrant or nwt, they are only valid for the opinion of the individual reviewer (that is the way book reviews work) it is a mistake to start thinking book reviews are valid for the opinions of societies or journals etc. A book review is different from an editorial or a news story. Polargeo (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Crackpot

I have provided sources for my comments, but his views are in any case not mainstream. TFD (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Is there any reason why you do not consider The National Interest[17] to be a reliable source? TFD (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it`s a free tabloid newspaper, hardly a reliable enough source for a BLP mark nutley (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are talking about the same The National Interest. There have been some problems with reliability in the past, and I'd probably choke on the editorial bias, but calling it a "free tabloid newspaper" hardly does it justice. For one, it's not free ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry i meant The eXile, which is the one i tagged. TFD stop confusing me :) mark nutley (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Stuff removed from the CRU hack RFC

Please see User_talk:BigK_HeX#CRU hack RFC. As it wasn't on topic and seemed to be getting ugly I thought it best to remove the material from the page. --TS 00:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok tony thanks for the heads up mate mark nutley (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Can you please explain here or on the Libertarianism talk page why you undid my edits? --Xerographica (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Massive removal of content without an edit summary, what did you think would happen? mark nutley (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My bad not including the edit summary. If possible, I'd appreciate your recommendation on the Libertarianism page. I've noticed some articles such as Libertarianism and Objectivism and Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism which juxtapose two similar ideologies but the editors on the Libertarianism page are trying to write about numerous ideologies...some of which have nothing in common other than the name. The result is an overgrown disambiguation page that generates confusion and conflict. Here's where I posted my recommendation... Talk:Libertarianism#Disambiguation_vs_Forms_vs_See_Also but I'm thinking we need an outside perspective or perhaps some type of informal arbitration. What do you recommend? --Xerographica (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Blackpad

Hello Marknutley, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Blackpad, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —mono 02:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

JSTOR

Mark, if you ever need someone with JSTOR access and can't see anyone in the category who is active at that moment, you are always free to ask me. I would be happy to help. Best, NW (Talk) 12:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks nuke, thats real good of you mate mark nutley (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I also have JSTOR/ProQuest/EbscoHost/Lexis/LexisNews access, if you need it. Sometimes our subscription doesn't cover some articles, but usually it does. GregJackP Boomer! 16:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking a break

I`m taking a break from wiki for a few days, ping me an e-mail if arbcom ever get around to making a decision :) mark nutley (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Erwin van den Brink's review of Hockey Stick Illusion

Mark, I'm just looking at the discussion of the review of HSI by van den Brink. It seems clear that advertorial copy isn't really suitable for Wiki.

With the freeze on that page, it might be sensible to concede ground there, so show that you can give up gracefully.

Just a word to the wise. Slowjoe17 (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

New sanction for CC articles

You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Article tags. Sincerely, NW (Talk) 22:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark, thanks for self-reverting at MMann. I didn't realize it was you who added the tag, although I'll quickly emphasize that if I had known, it wouldn't have changed my reaction. I'll also note that according tot he strict letter of the NW post, even self-reverting might make you in violation, but I think a sensible interpretation of the new rule is that self-reverting a tag that creates a reaction should be OK. While emotions are strong, I hope that no one would actually ask for a sanction in that case, but I'll stick up for you if it happens. I'm also responding because I think you are the first person to ever call me phil - which is my nickname, so it is appropriate, but I just thought it was odd that it hasn't happened before.

I'm personally planning to make no edits to CC articles until the arb decision is out. I'll contribute to talk pages, but not to article pages. --SPhilbrickT 00:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Contentious sources

Please don't do this. CHE is a reliable source. Adding a less reliable one does not help the claim, and adding a hotly contested source will only fan the flames. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It is only hotly contested because if the usual suspects, tell me this is the source wrong? mark nutley (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not strike other users comments

It is completely inappropriate to strike other users comments on a talk page as you did here [18]. If you have evidence from somewhere else that supercedes the evidence that I used and cited, you are welcome to provide them and request that I strike my comments. Active Banana (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ya try looking at the CU evidence you actually link to mark nutley (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The CU evidence was inconclusive, but he was blocked as a sock based on behavioral evidence. So yes, he was blocked as a sock. And yes, CU did not identify him as a sock. Ravensfire (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not somone was a sock or not. The issue is that it is inappropriate to strike other's comments WP:TPO. Active Banana (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

NPA

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Marknutley. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. In this edit summary [19] Active Banana (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Don`t think you had to template me mate, sorry for calling you a moron, just got back from a funeral and am a little drunk. Again, sorry for my stupidity mark nutley (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Aplogy accepted. I am sorry for your loss. Active Banana (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI - "The Gore Effect" discussion

In a dialogue with Yopienso, I have referenced what I believe to be a fair representation of your position on the distinctions of the "2 uses" in "The Gore Effect" article. This is to advise you of that use should you wish to clarify or offer further comment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary CC article restriction

Please consider signing the CC restriction, as explained here. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Curry and weight

Regarding the discussion here,[20] weight is a relative thing. Being a bit of an inclusionist, I would argue that unless the article is exceeding the article length, there is no reason to not include her opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Butter Chicken served in an Indian restaurant.

MMMMM Curry, rice and a naan bread delicious! But potentially bad for your weight Polargeo (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks a bundle :) now i want a curry and the nearest one is an hours drive :( mark nutley (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I always want curry, and within 10 minutes walking distance I have at least 3 Indian and two Thai places. There are advantages to living in a city. But I'm gonna fry up something myself tonight... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting verified content and sources

If you continue to delete verified content and sources, you will be blocked or banned from Wikipedia. This is the only warning I will give you. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Try your luck, your use of blog posts and twitter to source factual information about living people is a joke, don`t do it again mark nutley (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The living person in question is Virginia Heffernan. If you had removed all the content, you'd have a leg to stand on. As it is, what you essentially did was remove only the quotes she made repudiating the quote left in the article. This has the effect of implying that Heffernan has an opinion that can easily be verified to have been repudiated. Not a good encyclopedic practice. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Get an reliable source then and read wp:rs wp:sps and wp:blp in the meantime mark nutley (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that a direct quote from Heffernan is not a reliable source for what Heffernan thinks? Do you dispute a) the certified Twitter Account? b) the blog post's integrity? or c) do you just want to include positive and not negative reviews of Watts? ScienceApologist (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I`m saying read the links provided in my last post. mark nutley (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A verified or clearly indisputable twitter account post is a reliable source for simple comments about the subject about themselves but not for content about other people. Looking at it as ScienceApologist added it, (and she refers to it via her http://twitter.com/page88 confirmed Twitter account) it was not correct, linking to a single post with detail and comments only in regard to herself it allowable like this http://twitter.com/tinselkorey/status/10734679036. Also this citation that ScienceApologist added http://www.neuronculture.com/http:/www.neuronculture.com/archives/for-virginia-hefferman-readers-some-contexst-on-the-scienceblogs-pepsi-fizz#comment-1859 Self published with comments about other people, seems to me to fail WP:SELFPUB and WP:RS. I will say and this is something I have said before in similar circumstances, that removing such content in a dispute is not worthy or even close to being a BLP exempt revert and should not be made as such. Off2riorob (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So is it your opinion that because one of her opinions was published in the New York Times and the other is only merely verifiably self-published, we can only include that which was published by the New York Times? I'd like clarification on that. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

SA: ArbCom has asked us to take a break from editing CC articles. Many of us have been abiding by this request for 3 weeks now. I think you should give it a break. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Does mark not deserve this notice too? Just wondering. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, What about a reply to your editing comments I made? Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I did. Is there more you wanted me to reply to? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for exposing yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)#Principle of least astonishment

Hi Mark. I read this discussion, and was unsure which sources you wanted. If you want to email me and tell me which sources you would like, I would be happy to try to dig them up for you. Best, NW (Talk) 19:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks nuke, actually all i need to know is how is Watts described in this article [21] or if it his site which is discussed. Thanks again mark nutley (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, my institution doesn't seem to have access to Energy & Environment. I probably should have figured, because not many people here would work on that topic. I could probably get access to it in 3-4 weeks if you are willing to wait that long. My apologies, NW (Talk) 20:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol. i`ll be topic banned by then :) but yes i would appreciate finding out, thanks mate mark nutley (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Check your email. I sent exerts that mention Watts to you, with page numbers listed. GregJackP Boomer! 00:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Greg, could you forward the entire article to me (nw.wikipediagmail.com)? Misrepresentation of sources, especially those that are hard to access, is a serious matter that can have very serious consequences, and I would like to investigate this further. NW (Talk) 18:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice

You have been mentioned here: [22] Minor4th 19:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The M&W paper

Regarding the M&W paper, a couple points. (I'm not going to respond at the Mann talk page, because I am abiding by the voluntary recusal from CC articles.). I've read the entire paper, and think it is interesting, but think it is premature to incorporate it into any articles. I've served, both on a committee to peer=review papers, and as the chair of such a committee. I do not recall a single example of a submission that was accepted as is. In some rare cases, the recommended changes were minor, but in many cases, we recommended more substantial changes. I can only speak for my practices, but I will be surprised if they are materially out of line. I'm not arguing that we should not discuss the paper, but I would oppose inclusion of the paper as a link or a source until such time as it is accepted. (I'll note that I've seen arguments that the delay should be even longer - to await community reaction, but I disagree with that position.)--SPhilbrickT 17:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with you mate, i even mentioned on the article talk page that we should wait until the paper is published mark nutley (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My userpage menu

My apologies, it seems I forgot to actually answer your question about the menu on my Userpage. I got it from the Wikipedia:User page design center, which has lots of menus and resources for designing a unique userpage. You can subst one of the existing menus and then adapt it to your own needs, or use them as a template to create your own design. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Attention and participation

As you might know, The Signpost has been reporting on the Climate change case for the past several weeks. One of the drafting arbitrators is clearly unhappy with my reporting, and a couple of other users share a similar view. However, some users disagree (and on at least one occasion, one case participant disagreed with the objection raised (see this). Each user is obviously going to have their own opinion, but irrespective of the outcome, I think actual participants in the case (who are involved in the dispute or may be affected) should add their input. Therefore, I think your attention and participation is invited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Keith Kloor

Thanks for starting his article. I'm enjoying his blog. I'll have to look for a RS praising it. Might be hard to find a non-blog, though... :-[ Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Grunwald

You marked that you are reviewing this article for GA on August 9. It's been now almost two weeks. Any progress? Renata (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry been busy, shall make a start on it tonight mark nutley (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Bob ward stub

Hi Mark, some quick thoughts. Note that this should not be taken as endorsement of your proposal; these are purely comments.

• Ref 1 is OK
• in Ref 2 you confuse Ward with Watson
• Ref 3 is not a RS for facts about folk
• Refs 4-6 are broadly OK

Other than that I would put "Climategate" in quotes, though I guess we disagree on that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through all the sources at User talk:Marknutley/Workshop and as far as I see they're ok to use, except the second one, since this looks like another man (I didn't see it yesterday unhappily). As far as I see the Ref 3 is ok since it's covered by WP:NEWSBLOG (the second one in the current article). Nsaa (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW

I think you got thrown under the bus in the Arb proposed decisions, and when I have an extra few minutes I intend to make that case in the discussion. Minor4th 20:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, those double deckers do leave a nasty mark on your back don`t they :) mark nutley (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Since I do not want the discussion to go off topic at the PD talkpage, I will respond here; because if it passes for 6 months you will not be able to edit the encyclopedia in any capacity (and if you sock and are found out it gets to be longer) and you may very well find something else to do. The fact that you have written on subjects other than CC may mean you have no single minded obsession with spreading the truth - prepared to avoid or wait out your ban - and could easily find another avenue for your talents. Plus, you might not want to work with a bunch of drongo's who chucked you over... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DarknessShines2. You have new messages at Minor4th's talk page.
Message added 03:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Liz West

Dude, look at the edit summary and at the edit itself before engaging in knee-jerk reversion. All I did was to consolidate one ref used twice in a single paragraph. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, i have self reverted mark nutley (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

POV fork: Diff doesn't seem to support allegation

In case you didn't see this.[23] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for a violation of your sourcing parole, in this edit. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

{{unblock|I have not broken my sanction, The Chree Medal and Prize is not a CC article.}}

Thank you, regarding my restriction i wish to appeal it, i believe you said i could appeal it to you as you were the one who enforced it, is this correct? mark nutley (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

haha, thats what you get for being a capitalist on wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you may appeal it. If you have a clear and convincing argument for overturning, I will listen to that. If I decline, the situation gets much more tricky. It was placed using both General Sanctions and BLP Special Enforcement, and applies to both Climate Change articles and BLPs. As I understand it, both parts would need to be overturned separately, requiring appeals to both the enforcement board and AE or Arbcom. I'm going to work now, but when I get home later tonight I will take a look at your arguments for appealing the restriction. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, see here [24] when you get home. mark nutley (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

MN, it's kinda hard to judge your sourcing improvement. You can't go by the articles you've created that were affected by your sourcing probation - all sources you wanted to add/remove had to be approved by someone else. Hopefully any inappropriate sources, or inappropriate use of sources, was caught by that. That's part of the reason I was hoping you would keep a public log on-wiki of each request and the response - it would make any judgement easier. As it is, I think you've improved, but you still tend to cherry-pick and bend sources too much. (EDIT)Hopefully you will get off the restriction, but please, please, please remember that EVERY source you use will be watched like a hawk, and ANY slip-up will not go well for you. If you're not totally, 100% sure you're perfect in your sourcing, you may want to consider a less restrictive option, but still will some restrictions. IE - approve any blogs, self-published source or anything other than a source from an impeccable source (major newspaper or journal). (/EDIT) Ravensfire (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if i think something maybe a tad dodgy i shall post on the reliable sources notice board and ask there, perhaps going back to my original restriction were i can use all MSM sources and books (which are not self published) would do for now? mark nutley (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeking a grant to at least use widely-reviewed scholarly journal articles would probably be non-contentious enough to give you the leeway you need to make a strong appeal later. BigK HeX (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been helping Mark some with sourcing, and I think he has improved a great deal. He still has some questions from time to time, but I think he will not hesitate to ask for help if there's any question at all about sourcing. I would volunteer to be a mentor for him, if he agrees to consult with me on sources when there's any question at all. I think under those terms, his restriction should be lifted. Minor4th 22:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Re denialism

Even after watching these articles for quite some time, my jaw dropped when I saw the train wreck over denial versus skeptic. I weighed in early in the day, but assumed it would be quickly closed. When I checked my watched list and saw that 50 edits had occurred, I wondered what was going on. What a mess.

But you know that, so let's get to why I'm here. SA is wrong. It's mind-boggling that he hasn't conceded, but even those not on your side agree he is wrong, and only a few are supporting him. But whatever happens to him, even if someone gives him a barnstar for whatever, and urges him to run for admin, it wouldn't mean you are released from your sanction. I fully understand why you might be quite annoyed or worse, but Surely you've been here long enough to know that "he did so I can too" carries zero weight. It's tough enough for your supporters to continue supporting you, please don't make it impossible. --SPhilbrickT 23:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was not going to, i was just trying to make a point. Hopefully i did :) Thanks for the advice, it is much appreciated mark nutley (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: A Favour

Not sure if you missed my response or you didn't need the two sources I have access to, but I just wanted to give you a heads up that I responded. NW (Talk) 17:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Appeal

Upon further review, you make a good case for appealing your restriction. I do believe that you may have learned more about what is and is not a good source. While I will not completely remove your restriction, I am prepared to reduce it to its original terms. Therefore, under the powers of Climate Change General Sanctions and BLP Special Enforcement, I hereby notify you that your restriction has been relaxed to the following:

Marknutley (talk · contribs) is prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions such as articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media, to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing. He is also prohibited from reverting the removal of sources that he added to an article without first gathering talk page consensus. Marknutley is encouraged to find a mentor who can assist in checking the reliability of sources and with more properly educating him on the reliable sources policy.

Also note that if you screw up, then the sanction can be reimposed at any time.

- The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with this, The Wordsmith, but you might want to check with the other admins who co-imposed the sanction. Per previous ArbCom rulings, you don't have the authority to unilaterally overturn a sanction like this. NW (Talk) 18:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the GS text and BLPSE explicitly state that sanctions may be overturned with the consent of the imposing administrator. I was the one that imposed the tightening of the restriction, so it is within my ability to loosen it to its prior terms. Nonetheless, I will post a notification on the RfE board. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Such a thing becomes much more iffy when it is one administrator imposing the consensus of several administrators. I would say that all administrators involved would have to agree, not merely the one who finally closed the decision. NW (Talk) 18:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a tricky situation, i'll give you that. I posted on the sanctions board for review. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Could you please inform all of the admins who were involved in the prior discussion? NW (Talk) 18:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Can one of you please caution WMC who has been following mark around and reverting his sourced content -- totally unjustified in every instance -- so if mark reverts him, then he will be in violation of his restriction. This is unfair to allow WMC to take advantage of mark's editing restriction like this. Wordsmith -- also see NW's talk page. WMC has violated his restriction against editing other's talk page comments again, this time on an article talk page in a CC related article. Minor4th 18:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

While every editor is important, Wikipedia does not turn on mark nutley's ability to "fend off" WMC, as you seem to suggest here. BigK HeX (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You missed the point. WMC should not be permitted to taunt and bait an editor into breaking his restrictions. WMC's behavior is disruptive and should be curtailed. Minor4th 19:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)