User talk:Bullwhip

July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Timothy F. Ball. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ~Matticus ^T_C 01:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Timothy F. Ball, you will be blocked from editing. Raymond Arritt 01:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the changes made reflect not an attempt to vandalize wikipedia as you state. Some of the text contained in the Dr. Timothy Ball article is a plain and deliberate attempt to openly discredit a man's reputation and work - without any real basis. The whole section on his credentials should be left out - he does have a Ph.D from the University of Londodn and this is just a vile attempt to cast a doubt on these credentials.

The version of the article before you began editing it plainly stated that Ball had "a Ph.D.[2] from the University of London, England in 1983" and even gave a link to the letter confirming his Ph.D. So, it's not clear what point you're trying to make here. Raymond Arritt 01:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the man is clearly a Ph.D. as you accept and state. Why then include a section disputing this fact when it is already established, if only to discredit him and cast a doubt on his credentials. The article - should the author wish to discuss or question his views on global warming - should limit itself to that and not to personal attacks on the man. Simple.

Where are you getting this from? There was nothing in the article disputing that Ball had a Ph.D. Perhaps you misread something. Raymond Arritt 01:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no mistake, there was a whole section on disputing his credentials, letters sent and received and a law suit that he eventually dropped, implying nefarious or bad intentions. I just think that despite his opinions, the article needs to be fair. Is that too much to ask?

Here's that section - "Dispute over academic credentials

Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, wrote in an April 23, 2006 letter to the editor of the The Calgary Herald in reply to an editorial by Dr. Ball: "... he does not have the academic background and qualifications to make serious comments on global warming". The paper had credited Ball as "[h]e was the first climatology PhD in Canada and worked as a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years."[12] Ball's resume shows that at the University of Winnipeg he was Associate Professor from 1984 to 1988, then Professor from 1988 to 1996.[13]
Ball has also stated that "for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg."[14]
In September, 2006, Ball filed suit against Johnson and four editors at the Calgary Herald newspaper for $325,000 for, among other things, “damages to his income earning capacity as a sought after speaker with respect to global warming”.[15]. In its response (point 50(d), p12), the Calgary Herald stated that “The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”(Original statement of claim, Defendant Johnson's answer, Defendant Calgary Herald's answer). In June 2007, Ball abandoned the suit."

This needs to be deleted - it is there only to discredit him. Not fair play.

I understand that proponents of Global Warming theory are very upset with the man for him disputing the science behind the theory, but in reality this is nothing more that peer review - as is expected with any new theory or conjecture - and if indeed this is a sound theory it will stand up to review. No need for credential attacks of this type on detractors or reviewers of the theory, this just lowers the quality of the debate.

The article's material on the lawsuit takes no side on the issue. It is properly sourced to public records giving both sides of the argument -- including Ball's own statement in his own words. (Furthermore, at no point did Johnson imply that Ball did not have a Ph.D.) Is it your contention that the entire episode should be omitted as if it never happened? Ball has made himself a prominent public figure, and lawsuits involving prominent public figures -- especially suits that they initiated -- seem noteworthy. They must be covered in an evenhanded fashion, and the article's coverage is if anything a rather dry recitation of the circumstances. Raymond Arritt 02:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken though I still consider it underhanded and malicious, as it is not his credentials that are being disputed. Indeed you state that he is a "public figure" and as such he is an open target. I do not agree, he is a scientist and is reviewing a stated and quite contentious theory. Thus I have changed the title of the section appropriately.

OK, I just couldn't see where the fact that he had a Ph.D. was ever at question. Raymond Arritt 02:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title itself was misleading. User:Bullwhip 8:55, 21 July, 2007 PST

Incidentally, why do you remove the word theory? Is Global Warming proven in your mind?

File permission problem with File:Lord-Monckton.png

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

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the photo was supplied by Lord Monckton himself and he specifically gave a free use license as per the license tag attached to the photo. Please remove the "administrator:please delete" instruction. Bullwhip (talk) 17:19 December 24, 2009

I do not believe the copyright status of this picture. A previous usage of it can be found here: [1], where it is attributed to Mike Wilkinson. Your assertion that it is provided by Lord Monckton himself will need to be cleared. (as described above) It doesn't become free just because you upload it to Flickr. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you personally wish to disbelieve or not is not germane here. The proper procedure is to request proof. Please provide me with your personal e-mail and I will forward the Lord's CV along with the picture and his authorization for free usage. Bullwhip (talk) 12:53 December 25, 2009

You need to send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, as stated above. There is a sample consent letter at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries (which should really come from Monckton if he's the copyright owner). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced edits

Thank you for your recent contributions to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Please note that, under Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, all content in such a biography must be sourced to reliable and verifiable sources. I have therefore had to remove the unsourced material that you added to the article. If you can find a reliable source for the factual material, please add it back. (But please do not add your own commentary to the article.) -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note - however, much of the material I changed was left - though sources aren't listed, much of the material I added, such as his wife's parentage, and his achievements at school were removed, and some of the material listed there in the original article is against Wikipedia's policies, yet remains there - such as using personal or unreliable blogs as reference. I am in touch with Lord Monckton, and I am trying to be accurate, neutral and articulate insofar as references - indeed all the family references can be found on wikipedia itself if you will have a look. Much of the information was provided by him, as well as his school information and more - from his Curriculum Vitae, actually. I cannot think of a more reliable source for biographic information the the person on whom the biography is about.Bullwhip talk 11:49, 24 December 2009 (PST)

Thanks for your reply. The fundamental problem with what you're stating is that a lot of this material isn't verifiable, since it's unsourced (whereas everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable), and information based on first-hand knowledge cannot be included in articles, since Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Might I suggest that you have a look at Wikipedia:Autobiography? If you can find information about Monckton that has been published by third parties, that would be best; unfortunately, unpublished material that comes from Monckton himself falls foul of Wikipedia's content policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will. There is still however the family information which is to be found on Wikipedia pages - his father, mother, etc. Should not that be left alone? Bullwhip talk 12:24, 24 December 2009 (PST)

It looks okay, since another editor posted the Who's Who entry that it came from (thus it's clearly verifiable). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was deleted. References to his wife's father and his mother, I mean. Bullwhip (talk) 17:27, 24 December, 2009 (PST)