User talk:DarknessShines2/Archive 7

Apology and correction sought
Yesterday you repeatedly removed a source - http://goklany.org/library/CCROLE.pdf - from the IMG talk page, for reasons which you were told at the time were spurious and which you now know to be spurious. Please restore that source, and apologise for removing it, and promise not to indulge in such behaviour in future William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, WMC, are you willing and able to apologize for trying to abuse the BLPs climate change personalities you disagree with such as Fred Singer? Cla68 (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have any specific edits you want an apology for, please feel free to put them, one by one, on my talk page. Now, if you want to take a constructive part in *this* discussion, you could help MN by asking him to do the right thing instead of trying to derail the discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The only person who said it was wrong on the article talk page was you, and as you seem to have little respect for peoples personal details being published (I refer to your talk page and the pdf with fred singers address and phone number) i decided not to listen to you. SV however did give a proper explanation above, as you can see. I already let hipocrite know i was wrong, and if you want an apology from me for doing what i believed was the right thing then fine, I`m sorry mark nutley (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ungracious, but will have to do. Now you need to restore the link to the page - editing other peoples talk page comments without good reason is not permissible William M. Connolley (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC, I think you should apologize to Singer for your recent insinuations of tax fraud by Singer on your user page, as well as old transgressions such as your repeated use of blog sources for criticism and your push to put the Martian thing in the lead. If we're demanding apologies here then it's time for you to come clean too. ATren (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to make such a request on my talk page, where I'll deal with it. You're not welcome to derail this discussion here. Please reconsider your comment here, remember the deal, and remove both your comment above and my reply William M. Connolley (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, WMC, the above matter is done, there's nothing to derail because Mark apologized, and there is nothing uncivil about what I wrote. So why don't you take a cue from Mark, acknowledge your transgressions (Wordsmith listed them recently when he sanctioned you from Singer), and apologize for them? I think it will go a long way towards re-establishing trust between you and those of us who have long expressed concerns about your activities on BLPs. For me personally, a sincere acknowledgement of those inappropriate edits would cause me to lift any objection I previously had regarding your editing of "skeptic" BLPs. ATren (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the above matter is not done, because MN hasn't restored the now-known-to-be-fine text. I can't, due to 1RR. If you want to do your bit in helping resolve the problem, you could restore it for him. TW's sanction was appealled and hence is null; as I said, if you want apologies for anything, you nee to ask on my talk page not here William M. Connolley (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You broke 1r on the article without worrying about it, do the same on the talkpage i`m not going to complain about it mark nutley (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How rude and ungracious. I shall give up on you William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

24 hour block, per CCAPEr
I reckon you know how to request an unblock, so I shall leave it up to you. For future reference, get a second opinion on any edit that may be regarded by others as a revert - and even if the content is revertable, let someone else do it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Darmwari
Hello Marknutley. Thanks for the speedy deletion work you are doing; it's a very important activity! I did want to let you know, though, regarding Darmwari, that current consensus holds that it is bad practice to tag articles for speedy deletion as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as users may be actively working on the article content. Ten to fifteen minutes is considered a good time to wait before tagging such articles under either of these criteria. Please note that before an appropriate waiting period is over, the articles should not be marked as patrolled, so that the wait does not result in the article escaping review at a later time. Nothing here is meant to apply to any other criterion; attack pages and copyright violations especially should be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. Thparkth (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom Case Notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by WavePart (talk • contribs) 09:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

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 [22] 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)

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)

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, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, 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 Wikipedia.
 * 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) [btw. you are miscounting, i *always* mark reverts with "rv" - some of those you point to are consecutive edits (3:22-3:33 is one long edit section where i didn't conflict with any other editor, thus being completely unaware that others where editing at the same time) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:43, 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 Wikipedia 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: tag with name "Marowits_2009-11-02_NBBJ" defined in is not used in prior text; see the help page. Cite error: tag with name "Chivian_2007-10-16_NYT" defined in 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)

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 Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at 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 Wikipedia. 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)

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)

Civility warning
This is incivil and should be struck William M. Connolley (talk) 14:53, 17 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)


 * WP:Edit warring is defined by an editor reverting to a preferred version without consensus and not attempting to create one, and as such is disruptive and makes the editor liable for sanction. As 3RR - or 1RR - is not an entitlement but a maximum limitation, non violation of that technicality does not mean an editor is permitted to continue reverting forever (or even an short period). If the reverts are contested, then there needs to be a resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 18 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)

Thank you
Thanks for the supportive link for Familypedia. Robin Patterson (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

your Al Gore image
That image belongs on imageshack and not on Wikipedia. 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)


 * Its not at all funny. Try this for a start :) http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/denial?page=2 Polentario (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

re: Request
Sorry, just got time to look at my messages and saw your request. I'll try to look this afternoon and comment here. Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll give you my 2 cents right now - i've been following your development of the article: I have seldomly seen a worse example of POV cherry-picking (SYN) by google. And don't misunderstand me, i certainly think that there is a great potential for an article on this particular topic. One example is your cherry-pick from Desslers book - while this without doubt is in the book, it most certainly is neither the gist nor a significant point in the book - it simply is a cherry-pick of a quote from you. Another example is your description of the Malaria debate, you are selecting Reiser, not because he is significant in the debate (weight), but because his views fit.
 * There is little secondary source description of the topic, instead you are creating your own essay from various sources that you picked that say something that you feel fit. (that is a synthesis). Look around instead and try to find references that actually describe the concept, instead of examples of the concept. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My comments
 * Source - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60H3VE20100120
 * Seems a reliable source for the political impact of the accusations to me. I think you should adjust your phrasing some, however.  You say "was accused of exaggerating", but don't mention who was accusing.  The article mentions Indian Environmental Minister Jairam Ramesh (plus "some climate researchers").  I would also add some of the quotes from the IPCC statement, as they are pretty powerful, plus mention that this was pulled (shows the impact of the accusations).  Something like "An IPCC statement in response said that checks were not done properly and that projections used 'poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession.'  This projection was removed from the final summary in the 2007 report."


 * Source - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jan/18/climate-change-himalayan-glaciers
 * Seems decent, but you need to change how you use it. You say "The date was based on a report submitted by the World Wide Fund for Nature" which is true, but not complete.  The paragraph from the source say "The environmental organisation WWF has admitted that a report on the impacts of climate change on glaciers in India, China and Nepal, which it published in 2005, included an erroneous reference to a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology of the International Commission for Snow and Ice, indicating that it stated "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high". In fact, nothing like this quote appears in the cited document, and the magazine 'New Scientist' has reported that one of its articles from 1999 was the source."  You need to include more of that in your statement.  There's some other material in the Guardian source that you might want to include, such as the error might have been noticed if it hadn't been buried.  Maybe also something about the World Glacier Monitoring Service saying that the Himalayas are "strongly underrepresented".  Not sure about that though - too easy to coatrack/OR on that line to get some useful meaning.  (IE - if this data is so important, why underrepresented?  Just a sign of the pro-AGW trying to hide data ...)


 * Source - http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/sunday-mail/hidden-doom-of-climate-change/story-e6frep2o-1111114372364
 * Interesting piece, but I'm concerned about how you use it. His main point in the article is that the true dangers are hidden.  The way you're using the source it appears that his main point is that the claims are exaggerated, then add the "however" clause.  I don't like how this is used.


 * Source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8571353.stm
 * Source - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/uk-government-rebuked-for_n_500622.html
 * Some problems here. The quote you attribute to the ASA about mainstream science is not supported by the source.  The article uses the phrase without saying it is a quote.  Unless you know for certain that's an exact quote from the ASA, just leave it as the ASA's position.  Also, add a bit more detail about why the ads were found bad, pulling from "It noted that predictions about the potential impact of global warming made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "involved uncertainties" that had not been reflected in the adverts. " I'd change the last sentence to "Then Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband defended the advertisements, saying "We probably should have made it clearer that this was a prediction and we should have made it clearer the basis of the claim."
 * I'd pull the HuffPost source, its short, adds nothing and not needed here. Stick with the BBC source.


 * Source - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7778917/Royal-Society-to-publish-guide-on-climate-change-to-counter-claims-of-exaggeration.html
 * Seems pretty good. If you can, add a mention of this "The Royal Society will look again at the public communications on climate change after 43 fellows complained that so far the message has not reflected the uncertainty in the debate. " Gives something for why he had to say this.  Could also add 'Benny Pesier from the Global Warming Policy Foundation responded to the Royal Society's statement with ""I think it is very wise to accept that while the basic science is solid, we have no idea what is going to happen in the future." '


 * There's a feel of cherry-picking in the material. Yes, I realize you're trying to work on an article called Climate Change Exaggeration.  As it's written right now, I'd call it a POV fork and recommend it for deletion.  It's a fairly one-sided article without much balance.  Even in just the section I reviewed, there was some obvious skewing in the quotes you used.  You need to include both sides when it's there.  In particular, if a side is accused of something, you really should include their response.  WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and all of that.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys, i will do what you both have mentioned, @ Kim i`m not cherry picking mate, that Desseler quote came up on google books, so i don`t have access to the whole thing. I`ll look through what i can of it in the previews to try and balance out that quote. Dr Paul Reiter, an expert epidemiologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris you really think he carries no weight? mark nutley (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, what i mean about cherry-picking is that you are, actively selecting quotes broken out of context, that support your personal proposition. That would be acceptable in an essay for school (or whatever), but not in an encyclopaedic article. It is POV and a synthesis. [As i said: "Synthesis by google" and you just confirmed it]--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Kim, would you like to help with the article? Or copy and paste sections you think suck and suggest changes on the talk page of the article? mark nutley (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another issue is that you are (from what i can see) actively rejecting references which do not support the position that you quote. As an example ub the malaria controvesy is one such - you are dismissing the mainstream, and focusing entirely on a single sceptic [who happens to make a quote that fits the google search]. Thats not good. It is POV by omission (and weight). There are many other such issues.
 * But the major problem with your text, is that you are collecting "evidence" yourself, instead of relying on secondary reliable sources for it. For example the lede: You pick 2 quotes you like and turn that into a conclusion.
 * Summary: Find sources that about the concept not examples of the concept. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As an addendum to the above: I would be very surprised if there aren't scholarly papers on this particular subject. The most relevant focus (as it is in your essay) is media exaggerations, of which there are a rather abundant supply - and thus i'd be surprised if there aren't papers about it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry kim, but i reject your assertions with regards to malaria, there are sources from The Lancet, Nature National Geographic in there which also say that the claims have been exaggerated, are you really saying those are sceptic journals? Come on. The mainstream with regards to malaria is not what the IPCC says i`m afraid. I will listen to epidemiologists on this subject, not climate scientists mark nutley (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, you are confusing your references. None of the references to Malaria are from The Lancet (although interestingly enough that particular article disagrees with your view). Your usage of the article in Nature (full version here) is first of all WP:OR, but secondly is also a POV summary (ie. you present it as POV - since the paper does say that Malaria spread is caused by warming - you simply focus on what you want to say). I also wonder whether you have read the IPCC conclusions on Malaria - your comments certainly indicate that you haven't - and that you are taking a POV view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC) [to summarize: There is a nuanced picture about Malaria and climate change - you aren't presenting it - but are instead picking the black dots out of shades of gray, to present a one-sided view --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)]
 * Sorry kim but no, First, widespread claims that rising mean temperatures have already led to increases in worldwide malaria morbidity and mortality are largely at odds with observed decreasing global trends in both its endemicity and geographic extent. Second, the proposed future effects of rising temperatures on endemicity are at least one order of magnitude smaller than changes observed since about 1900 that is a direct quote from one of the ref`s. How can you say i am cherry picking stuff when what i am doing is reading the previews? Are you saying this paper is wrong? And that malaria cases have actually risen? Come on man, the paper is quite clear in what it says, that malarial cases have decreased since the 1900`s mark nutley (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, please try to actually understand what the paper is saying, and what/where the debate is. The paper is not saying that Malaria will not become more widespread caused by climate change (it says the opposite in fact - Africa will see a significant increase), it also doesn't say that there won't be an increase in malaria infections in some regions (it says the opposite in fact). Morbidity and mortality is not the same as spread (people may get it, and not die). It does say that the increase in Malaria will be smaller than the decrease since 1900 - but that is not where the debate is (and it is not what the IPCC says). You are inventing a controversy - and cherry-picking papers and sentences to support your personal viewpoint. [please also note that Malaria spread in 1900 was extremely bad, and that going back to even a fraction of the cases then will be bad]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation
Please take this as constructive criticism and not an attack or anything else. When you write contraction, you incorrectly use the grave accent ( ` ) instead of the apostrophe ( ' ). That's fine on talk pages, and I'm sure everyone understands what you're saying, but it would be incorrect if you used it in such a way in an article. Kind regards, -Atmoz (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my grammar was always terrible :) mark nutley (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Check there history

 * The poster on Chzz talk page has a point. If you look through all 3 person's edit history you will see that they edit the same pages. 190.136.178.239 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks
Removing this is complete and utter bullshit. Stop it. Bradley specifically pointed to that link in written testimony to reply to an official request from a chairman of a committee of the United States Congress. There are absolutely NO BLP concerns with linking there. -Atmoz (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, were is the ref for that then? I sure don`t see it in that article. That link to a blog is a breach of wp:blp and does not belong there. Another thing, do not call me a vandal again or i will file an rfe against you mark nutley (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The link is here. It's in the sentence immediately preceding the one you removed. Surely you read it. Perhaps you click on the link. -Atmoz (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No Atmoz ref 3 is the one preceding ref 4 which is a link to a blog. And i just searched the pdf here and there is not mention of realclimate, nor of a dummies guide mark nutley (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, that's not true in any version of the article. The article before your edit was, where ref 4 discusses realclimate but is not a blog, and the article when you made the above comment was , where ref 4 discusses realclimate but is not a blog. Would you care to revise your comment? Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, the PDF you linked to is not Bradley's reply, but rather Barton's letter to Bradley. You are confused. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Err if you search the wrong document, you won't find what you're looking for. Atmos has provided a link to a letter written by Bradley to Barton which states quite clearly the RC link William M. Connolley (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism warming
This, in addition to removing one comment (which is fine), modified one of my comments. This is not allowed under the talk page guidelines and is classified as vandalism. Please do not further modify other users comments. -Atmoz (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your taking the piss ain`t ya, stay off my talkpage mark nutley (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. I will stay off you user talk page unless issuing further warning. This edit is also vandalism as it removed my comment. Do not do so again. -Atmoz (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * you have edited my posts, by your reasoning then your a vandal and i am right by reverting you mark nutley (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Another edit warring block
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. 24 hours. I assume that you are still under the 1RR restriction, although it would not matter since there must have been a violation of 3RR at Talk:Michael E. Mann, but I should note that no number of reverts is a right - it is a bright line. Further, I am sure you have not forgotten that there is a ArbCom in respect of the entire AGW/CC article editing situation; I have no idea what you think you were doing today, but you have fucked up big time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I fucked up? Bollocks, let atmoz call you a fucking vandal in edit summaries and on your talk page, see how you like it. My 1r is on articles, not talk pages. This is bullshit mark nutley (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Mark, I looked through the edits. Atmoz crossed the line but so did you. I found no BLP concern with the edit in question (the RC blog was referenced by the person himself in his own paper, hardly a BLP concern) and removing Atmoz's comment in the RFC was ill-advised. You both deserved a block here. ATren (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ~I did not notice he had put a comment in there, he had not the first time he edited my post. The third time i reverted his editing of my posts i moved his comment mark nutley (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the RFC edit, which I thought was a removal but I now see was a move. I still disagree on the BLP exemption; it wasn't a BLP issue IMO. ATren (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion - take it or leave it
Mark...I note you have removed the unblock request from your talk page which, at least as I read the text, might be interpreted as a further violation of the terms of the block and, hence, may be grounds for further action against your account. Despite your obvious pique at the circumstances and imposition of the block (about which I will remain ambivalent), you might want to consider restoration of the required content prior to the expiration of your block so as to mitigate the chance for further fallout. Just a suggestion. Take it or leave it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect
...which is about gore telling everyone there gonna die if we don`t stop this global warming... Really. not .helpful Mark. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just a little humour, to try and lighten the atmosphere over there :) mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark...for your consideration. While I haven't yet grasped the rationale for your recent undiscussed article edit(edit summary: "(remove duplicate stuff)", whether it is defensible of not is less important than the propriety of "drive-by" editing given the current instability of the article. Assuming your edit to be "substantive", wouldn't it be better (at least in the short term) to discuss it (if only briefly) in "talk" before editing the article itself? Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur
I happened to stumble upon Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur and noticed your name in the edit history. I was thinking that it might be a good idea for you to take a break from the climate change articles and work on something else. Perhaps you might want to help me improve the MacArthur dismissal article, maybe we can even try to get it to good article status. What do you think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea truth be told, my name is in that particular article as i happened upon it on RC Patrol and reviewed it :), I`ll help out on it happily mark nutley (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. :) There's currently a {Cleanup} tag on the article.  I just posted a question on the article talk page to find out if there's anything left that needs to be cleaned up.  While I wait for feedback, I'll read through the article to see if I can spot anything else that might need to be fixed.  Have you gone through a WP:GA review before?  I haven't.  But one of my articles is about to go through the process, so I'll have a better idea of how WP:GA works, hopefully soon.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tried with The Hockey Stick Illusion but you can guess what happened there :) mark nutley (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hide the Decline music video
Do you remember if we ever had an article on the Hide the Decline music video? If so, was the article deleted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don`t think we did, but did`nt Mann try to sue those guys for that video? mark nutley (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If he didn't, Tommy James should. Hide the decline briefly pointed to the music video (e.g., ), although currently it is of course a redirect to Climatic Research Unit unfortunate event involving computers and unapproved access to accumulated electronic correspondence, or whatever the article is currently titled. :P MastCell Talk 21:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I can find enough sources to establish notability, I'll look into creating an article on it. For now, I've created a section on my talk page with a list of potential sources for such an article.  If you (or anyone reading this) come across any more sources, please add them to this list.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I could put in my usual plea about whether such an article would be a good use of effort, but what the heck. I see amongst your sources that The Guardian ranked it the #6 viral video in November 2009. Should we work on articles for the 5 viral videos that ranked ahead of it? If we do, let's start with this one (bonus points for sitting through all 8 minutes). :) MastCell Talk 21:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What? You think it might cause unnecessary drama?
 * Seriously, I would first complete the article in my user space. That should limit the fighting.  Once it's promoted to article space, it will probably be nominated for deletion, and the vote will probably go down partisan lines.  Which is why I need solid sourcing because the only thing that will save the article will be uninvolved editors.  So I won't create the article unless I'm sure it will survive AfD.
 * In any case, I'm not sure I should have to limit which articles I work on because we have editors who are out of control. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're right - it's not really my place to tell other people how they should spend their volunteer time here, and I apologize for any condescending aspect to what I said above. You seem reasonable, and obviously you've got a realistic understanding of the likely course that things will take, so it's your call. MastCell Talk 23:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No apology is necessary. It's a low priority and I'm working on several different articles anyway.  For now, I'll be happy to just get the sourcing done.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're right - it's not really my place to tell other people how they should spend their volunteer time here, and I apologize for any condescending aspect to what I said above. You seem reasonable, and obviously you've got a realistic understanding of the likely course that things will take, so it's your call. MastCell Talk 23:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No apology is necessary. It's a low priority and I'm working on several different articles anyway.  For now, I'll be happy to just get the sourcing done.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why start with a video, when its authors havent an article? I doubt sdo far minnesotans for globalwarming being notable. Correct me if I am wrong however. Polentario (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The video was actually a pretty big hit, over 500k hits on youtube and got mentioned in the press a fair bit. M4GW is fairly well known but i dunno if there would be enough sources for them to create an article mark nutley (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Who verified the sources in the Hide the Decline article, please? Hipocrite (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Look on the article talk page mark nutley (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not use NSAA in the future. NSAA failed to notice obvious information sourced to a blog. If you use NSAA again, and NSAA fails to remove blog-sourced content, I will seek sanctions against both of you. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not tell me what i can and can not do, which blog sourced content are you refering to? mark nutley (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The content sourced from a blog. Hipocrite (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded on the article talk page, watts up is good for watts opinion there is no problem with that ref mark nutley (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Do not call me "laddie" again. You may refer to me as "Mr," "Sir," or "Your Lordship," along with "Hipocrite," "H," or "Hip." Hipocrite (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As you probably expected, I've filed a request that your ongoing sourcing sanction be modified, again, due to your use of blogs as sources. You may comment at General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement. Hipocrite (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Civility parole
Hi Mark, I've placed you on civility parole per the WP:GS/CC/RE report dated June 17th. If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked. Email me or post on my talk if you've got any questions or comments. — east718  &#124;  talk  &#124; 19:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for letting me know mark nutley (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop
This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Arbitration/Guide to arbitration to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but...
There is no need to argue on my behalf. I present my case, WMC presents his, you present yours, everyone else presents their cases, and we let the Arbs decide on whose commentary best squares with the observable facts, and the best interpretations of policy. If we think people are wrong in their comments, we note the fact once (or trust in the reviewer being able to see it) and then move on. Nevertheless thanks for the concern - but believe me, it is misplaced. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok mate, thanks mark nutley (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Judge Reade, removal of primary document
Gosh, why? I know it's displayed on an external site, but it is a genuine court document. Request you revert. thanks Lower458 (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:blp clearly says Do not use trial transcripts, other court records, or other public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material So no i will not self revert and please do not reinsert that document into the article again, thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. Will undo. (Trying to be fair, but not an expert in Wiki rules) Lower458 (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Source review
I'll take a look, but it's probably going to be tomorrow before I'll have a chance. What's the context of how you're considering using the source? Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a review of the book, what he says about it mark nutley (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The link you provided did not work - 404 error.  I'd prefer to have a link to the actual review, if possible, not to a copy stored on a site run by the author of the book in question.  That raises some concerns right there.  From a cursory glance, I'd question the weight of the review.  Taylor's three books mentioned are on the Troubles and his other work also seems terrorism related.  I'm not seeing much info about his knowledge of climate science.  His review may be helpful in terms of the quality of the writing, but in terms of the data/conclusions, I've got some doubts.  Obviously, I haven't read the review yet, but these are just initial thoughts.  BTW - my next major free time could be late in the weekend, maybe even Monday.  Got plans for most of the holiday weekend.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weird the link works for me, i did ask andrew for a direct link but the review is not online as yet, that .pdf is a copy sent to him by the reviewer. As it is a review of the book and not the science then i don`t think that matters much, but the section from the review i`d like to use is this part as it focus`s on the writing "This book will have repercussions. It is well written, though demanding of constant focus, well laid-out and thoroughly referenced. It should be read by every believer in the authority of scientific institutions – but of course that is not likely. Montford has done a great service to science, to history and to a public grown sceptical of the scare stories upon which vast amounts of research funding, carbon trading and energy technology subsidies depend." Enjoy your weekend mate, have fun :) mark nutley (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I did a bit more looking around, starting with the post you had as a link. At a minimum, I would not use the review until it's actually printed elsewhere.  An early copy doesn't mean it won't change, and if you post a quote that gets changed or pulled in the final copy, it will not go well for you.  Some of the additional looking I did was into Taylor, and I think you'd have to label anything from him as coming from a skeptic.  The amazon user review of his book "Chill" has some disturbing quotes by Taylor - 'But more disturbing in terms of his relationship to truth is when he looks back on his Greenpeace time and confesses: "In truth, in the scientific realms in which I worked, and gained by now, some standing, I was an imposter... My scientific degrees were linguistic exercises in critical review. My performances on television, in public inquiries, on tribunals and commissions, those of an extremely well-briefed lawyer, the ultimate actor"'.  His comment "such scientific trials as have been performed in recent years, and I have not had time to pursue my interest in reviewing them, have demonstrated homeopathy's success..." is so laughable it's hard to give him any credibility with regard to science.  There are positive comments about him, and some of the other things I found agree that's he's got a good reputation.  But some of those statements are literally so far out of whach that I personally would take anything he says about science with a grain of salt.  Shoot me a note when the review is published and I'll take a look at it, but keep in mind what I said.  You've got a skeptic reviewing a book by a skeptic - that's rarely going to result in a critical view.  You tend to get a "feel good" review because the book reinforces their own personal views.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As a side note - Taylor's page on WP is either woefully out of date, or it's a different Peter Taylor. Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok cool, i actually wish someone would give it a critical review, then i could expand the article, i had hoped to get it up to GA mark nutley (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Um...
"No we can infer that it survived the AFD based on the fact the article was about the satirical aspect of the gore effect, that much is obvious"

I think I know what you're trying to say, but it doesn't translate that way. Perhaps you should re-read and re-phrase? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Erm?
How is the University of Californa's TV not a reliable source? Notice the uploader - click on the link, and you end up with the UCTV's own youtube channel.

I've said this before - there are no black/white definitions of what is and what isn't a reliable source. In this case its a Youtube video with no copyright problems, and most certainly a reliable source - but in general Youtube videos are not reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, because nobody on the internet can use that as a username, get real. You posted just recently that youtube was never a reliable source, make your mind up mark nutley (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where have i said that YouTube was never a reliable source? And yes. You are right - nobody else on the internet can use that particular username. But in case that you are still in doubt: Here is the press-release for the launch of the channel[] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes i checked, so now the issue is that it is a primary source mark nutley (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're already banned form introducing new sources by yourself. That is because you're not considered competent to evaluate sources. You might pause to think about the consequences William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Were exactly am i introducing a source? It is a primary source and as such can`t be used, it is tagged and if it is not sorted by tomorrow i`ll remove the section mark nutley (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Primary sources can be used, but they must be reliable, and they must be used carefully without interpretation. Many YouTube videos have been uploaded by their copyright holders  (Bloomberg News, as an example) and are considered reliable enough to cite and link. However, YouTube offers a lot of unreliable user-generated content which we can't use.  Sometimes, a user will upload material that is reliable and owned by a copyright holder other than themselves.  A good example is a TV fan uploading an archival copy of a newscast or program that was broadcast on network TV.  In those cases, we can't link to the content, but  we might be able to cite it on a case by case basis.  In any case, such a situation may suffice if only for the purposes of verification.  Mark, please remember, we evaluate sources separately, not as members of a group that are clearly defined. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:OR is quite specific about primary sources, there needs to be a reliable secondary source backing the claims made mark nutley (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, it's all about how the source is used. Again, instead of trying to appeal to general categories and blanket policies, try to evaluate a source on it's own merits.  When you do this, you'll see for yourself how all the policies and guidelines work together to help us choose the best sources in order to write the best articles.  So, we don't serve the rules with black and white thinking; The rules serve us as editors.  This is admittedly difficult for some people.  When you evaluate a source, forget about the rules.  When you're done, you'll see how the rules exist to simply support your evaluation. We actually don't even need them, because the research paradigm exists independently of Wikipedia.  Viriditas (talk)
 * Trying again, though I suspect it is hopeless: That is because you're not considered competent to evaluate sources. You might pause to think is the relevant bit. Or, more briefly, you're not considered competent to evaluate sources but that is exactly what you are trying, aggressively, to do William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh, without doing a thorough investigation, it looks reliable enough to me. Opinions are mixed about student-run sources (which I'm guessing this might be), but the speaker is professor with presumably an appropriate degree.  OTOH, there is a some rule about not citing multimedia sources, but that could possibly solved with the appropriate cite template, not sure.  Multimedia sources hasn't come up at RSN in a while and for all I know, they might have changed the rule.  (Personally, I'm sympathetic to allowing multimedia sources.  It's 2010.  Most people I know have broadband by now.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Altering others talk page comments
Please don't change others signed comments as you did here. Vsmith (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If a user edits another`s comments saying they are banned as a sock when they are not the ni will revert them, as you are not meant to edit another users comments, i assume you have already warned WMC for doing this? mark nutley (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverting and changing the wording are two different actions. Applying strikeout over a users comment is also different from changing the wording. I'm not commenting here on whether the strikeout was or was not appropriate - I'm stating that your changing of a signed comment was innappropriate, see WP:TPO. Vsmith (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Battle_of_Grunwald
In the past you have been involved in reviewing this article for GA class. I am afraid it is not up to modern standards, and begun a discussion at the page listed above. Your input would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Icecap (blog) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Icecap (blog) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Icecap (blog) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jinkinson  talk to me  20:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)