User talk:DarknessShines2/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

You might find this interesting reading

The full edit block I received 2 years ago, for making two offhand remarks to WMC, administered without review or warning within a few minutes of making the statement. In lieu of current laxity, it makes for interesting reading I believe. Look at the comments particularly by "Write Stuff".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FellGleaming&oldid=207661242

Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not surprising, i`m surprised you came back to the CC related articles though, you must be a little cracked :-) I believe bozmo is a fair guy though, at least he has always been open and honest with me mark nutley (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not questioning his integrity at all; I think his decision in my case was correct. I went away and came back a better editor for it. I think the admins are simply "between Scylla and Charybdis"; prevented for political reasons from enforcing policy as evenly as they would otherwise wish. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I Write Stuff is banned user NuclearUmpf, who was banned for threatening to harass gay editors via sockpuppets. Probably not the person you want to be relying on. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I shall endeavor to never attempt the same myself! Fell Gleaming^(talk) 16:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

MN, that incident is from 2 years ago, and still nothing has changed. Ask yourself: even if you're not wrong, do you really think you'll get fair treatment if you butt heads with WMC? He's been doing this with good faith editors for years now. You really have to stop responding to it, completely. Things have improved significantly lately and his tactics have come under heavy scrutiny, but if you keep responding the way you have been, you will take the blame. I've seen it happen time and time again, and you seem to be following the script to the letter. Please, disengage. ATren (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I`m trying to, he is not making it easy :-), please note i have been polite in out most recent exchange mark nutley (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Things have improved somewhat. Two years ago, he hadn't been stripped of much of his powers. There were many arbcom cases brought for him applying bans on people he had begun an edit war with...and back then you didn't have even a shred of due process; the hammer just fell on you instantly. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 19:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I am suggesting you not respond at all. There is no deadline. Let the process play out, rather than getting caught up in the middle of it. ATren (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, editor rights may have progressed some on wiki; however, it's all about content. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion

I have removed a comment you made on that talk page. If you wish to post a similar comment that does not violate your civility parole, you are free to do so. NW (Talk) 02:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks mark nutley (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

[1] sorry remind me when I mentioned anything to do with 3RR? --BozMo talk 09:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I`m just going to copy and paste your comment here "Returning from holiday and finding all the above I have also (finally, regretably) lost patience a bit with Mark on this. I cannot believe how much time is being wasted on this page and I think we have gone far enough in proving our desire to be completely even handed. Given the time wasted above, resetting a ban when the last ban was worked around is also not enough. I support a topic ban. On Lar's comment on WMC, I think we should acknowledge WMC is expert at 3RR, aside the things he is not expert at. --BozMo talk 02:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)" My comment was of course about the highlighted bit mark nutley (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Got it (bit thick today). I was replying to a specific comment by Lar and have clarified there. --BozMo talk 13:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom

Hi Mark, if you get a moment, could you explain to me the process for filing an arbcom complaint against an administrator? Thanks. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 03:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry man i have no idea. I suppose go to the arbcom board? mark nutley (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

On that note, and in response to you comment on KCs page, you need to take up your difficulty with [2] this edit at the appropriate venue.

Obviously KC is not interested, so the next step would be the CC probation page. However there you will find that the small group of participating admins have reached the consensus that the person you are having problems with is worth more to the project than most editors, and you are unlikely to have your complaint addressed.

The consensus seems to be that the problems with this editor are outweighed by their encyclopedic contribution. However in the case of your posted diff you are really just talking about vandalism, adding unsourced slurs to lower the tone of a BLP, so the part about adding encyclopedic content does not apply.

If I were you I would follow FGs route to a higher authority. The CC probation is not a community sanction, it was envisaged and enacted by a small group of admins who have succeeded in isolating CC articles in order to retain control over contributors, and it's authority is open to question given the participating admins consensus to allow certain individuals to continually work against the spirit that the CC probation was supposed to be helping with. Weakopedia (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am banned from bringing enforcement requests against the editor in question. Of any sort. I have been told quite simply, bend over and take it :) mark nutley (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That the CC probation team would enact such a ban without monitoring the behaviour of the editor in question really shows how futile that whole system is. You can't complain no matter what they do, and that gives them the ability to act as they wish. Right now it is the CC probation system and those that participate in it that is failing the encyclopedia. Weakopedia (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not acceptable...

You cannot - and i will repeat this ... cannot use opinion articles as a reference for factual information - you can only use such to state the opinion of the writer. You have been notified several times that Matt Ridley's article in the Spectator isn't a reliable source for such information - yet you repeat this here[3]. Don't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Then attribute it instead of reverting, christ almighty, you slap tags all over an article and when i put in the refs you demand you remove them. Ridleys article is perfectly reliable in the way it has been used mark nutley (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason for the tags. Personal information about BLP's must be rigorously sourced. Even with attribution to Ridley - it wouldn't be. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not acceptable

Comments on a blog are not reliable sources. I could right now go to real climate and write a comment ostensibly from Al Gore saying "I realize now that everything I said about Climate Change is wrong." That's not a reliable source for anything, at all. Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well you could try, i very much doubt your comment would ever appear though as RC moderate all comments. Given Judith Curry is a notable person in the field using her comments from there seemed fine to me, I do of course have another source for said comments. Of course not i have to wait 24 hours before redoing it don`t i. For a man who has quit the CC related articles you are not doing a good job of kicking the habit mark nutley (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, it's really not. If you can get anyone not involved in the CC articles at all to come to my talk page and tell me it's a reliable source, I'll add it back in myself. If you revert war to add it back in, of course, I'll just go to GSCC and ask that you be prevented from further disrupting things. I've tried to get away from the CC articles, but, like I said, I was reverting SciBaby, and then I saw Fel Gleaming and his questionable use of sources, so somehow my watchlist keeps growing. If only you could police people who agree with you to stop blatently violating rules, you'd be rid of me. Your loss, I guess! Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I`m not going to edit war at all. And i have removed a lot of unreliable sources from the CC related articles remember? Like i said i have another source which covers her comments so i don`t see this as an issue. How do you know when an editor is scibaby? Some of the ones i have seen are just a few words, like the addition of The Hockey Stick Illusion to the HS controversy article. I mean how the heck did you know? I don`t want to be rid of you btw, i reckon your a fair editor mark nutley (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"Comments on a blog are not reliable sources." -- Odd I've never seen Hypocrite complain about pro-warming cites to the RealClimate blog. I suppose consistency is too much to ask for. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 21:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a comment on the blog, not a blog posting, my mistake mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - throwing yourself into an editwar....

Haven't you still got a restriction on editwarring[4]? Yes - i know that you are under 1RR, but RR's are not entitlements. Since you haven't brought anything to the table at DeSmogBlog, and in fact are reverting against consensus (by my count roughly 5 vs. 2 (includes you))... then it doesn't look good. The material btw. may be well-sourced, but completely unreliable - and thus has no value beyond being disinformation --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I assume you mean the alexa ranking when you say disinformation, which btw is a pov, your meant to leave that at the door, not bring it to the table.. I was refering to the Solomon refs which WMC had removed which were reliably sourced. I am unsure how you think my reverting back in well sourced criticisms are edit warring, shall we have a whitewashed article with no crits at all? Also, consensus has not been reached with regards to alexa, therefore it should not have been removed mark nutley (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No Mark, that it is basically disinformation is not POV. When you give information that seems to have content - but hasn't, and which has a high chance of being wrong - then it is disinformation...... And i can see that you are (correctly) stating the same view to Hipocrite at Talk:Bishop Hill (blog)#Alexia... Which is rather strange, since it is the diametrically opposite position of the one you have at Talk:DeSmogBlog. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You like hippocrite are incorrect. I am saying that alexia does not count subdomains effectively, as i showed on the Bishop Hill talk page. Desmogblog is not a subdomain, it is a domain. However i have been reading up further on alexia, it is a junk way of assessing a sites stats, visitors need to have the alexia toolbar installed, a site could get 100k hits and it would not show on alexia if none of the visitors had this toolbar installed. So unless Desmogblog has had the Alexia code embedded into their index.php to count for them, then it is in fact a waste of time, The same issue arises with quantcast, unless you have their code embedded into your index file, it ain`t gonna count your site. And as no site owner will (i would hope) advertise the fact that these exploitable java scripts are running on their sites then quite simply Alexia and Quantcast are good for nothing mark nutley (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you should note your findings to Cla and ATren - because that is exactly what i've been saying all the time. And you should have self-reverted when you realized that you were in error. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC) [nb: It is not necessary to use any javascript to do tracking though - a simple 0x0 pixel image that is loaded from an external server combined with an identity cookie from the external server is enough. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)]

I was about to revert as well, so it's 5-3. But remember, consensus is not a vote. ;-) Mark, I suggest you ignore this; one revert is fine. I believe WMC is on 1RR as well, right Kim? (yes, in fact, he is) So have you warned him too? ATren (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

ATren, that is very bad advice. Mark is basically still a newbie (still learning) - and if he ends up getting sanctioned at some point because he is following that advice - will you then follow troop and share the sanctions? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, 1 revert is not a violation. If it is, then bring it to the enforcement board, but realize that WMC is under the exact same restriction and took the exact same action on the exact same page, so I fully expect you to report both; and if you include only MN, I will amend the request to ask that any sanction be applied equally to both (which, BTW, should be nothing because neither violated his restriction). ATren (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually ATren you should know better. When there is already an edit-war in full swing - then your revert can be counted as edit-warring - neither 1RR or 3RR are entitlements. Finally if you look over my history here on WP - i very very very seldom report anyone (or run yelling to an admin as many others) - you will have to have stepped over the line quite a lot of times before that happens. That doesn't mean that others won't do it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, if you had warned both sides equally, and if there weren't such snarkiness in your message, perhaps I would have responded differently. But the way you presented it ("Since you haven't brought anything to the table..") seemed overly aggressive, and I don't think Mark needs to respond to that kind of warning. ATren (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no deadline

Mark, I can't help much with the RFC itself (I've not done that process very much, and not in a long time) but might I suggest again that you take your time and be patient? If the POV tag stays up for a week or a month, who cares? Work it through patiently on talk, and eventually it will come down, especially with people like Cla helping out. You always seem to be in a rush to fix such things, and your zeal actually seems to make it worse -- notice that several responders to the RFC weren't even exactly sure what you were requesting, and if you keep doing that, you'll get a reputation for crying "wolf". Even if you believe others are being tendentious and obstructionist, you have to be patient and let the process play out, or it will blow up in your face. When carrying a full load of dynamite in a rickety old truck, you don't take the unpaved side road even if it's half the distance. ;-)

And I'd also suggest you compose a draft of an RFC in your userspace, and seek outside input before you post it to the talk page. Once it's posted, it's too late for others to help. ATren (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Already doing it mate, i know there is no rush, but the simple fact is the pov tag should not have been put on that article. There are no crits of the book, simple fact. What we now have are editors trying to insert a POV to make the book appear fringe and not accurate. mark nutley (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, the POV tag is probably spurious, but you still have to let it play out. Remember how long the Climategate article had a POV tag? That's just the way it works while the conflict plays out. ATren (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember this too, when readers see the POV tag on an article, more of them will click over to the talk page than usually do to see what is going on. I think what they see there will be very educational about how the AGW topic is treated in Wikipedia. Some of them might even decide to get involved. Cla68 (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Even better (or worse?) some of them may decide to read the book for themselves... --BozMo talk 12:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Bozmo it would be good if they did, at least for andrews wallet :)

Unfortunately no library in Denmark carries this book (university,highschool or public), so i have had to make do with searching and reading it via Google books. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You can always order it via Amazon.com or The Book Depository :-) mark nutley (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Since i have a rather extremely long list of more important books that i must/will/should buy, this one simply doesn't have the capability of reaching a spot where it could come on the budget. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No thanks, really.

I fail to see a similar post at User_talk:FellGleaming, so why would I? Because I'm right, but you are on his side? Or because his insults are to easily spotted to count? Lars T. (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen him insult anybody like you have there, in fact i have not seen any posts were he insults anyone, do you refuse to remove your attack? mark nutley (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Don't be a prat", to use his words. Lars T. (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a diff? And will you remove your PA? mark nutley (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Intellectual dishonesty (or simple disability to use the find function of a browser) duly noted. [5] Lars T. (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Get real, have you seen how many edits Fell has made over the last few days? You are the one who saw the remark, you must have a vague idea were it is? mark nutley (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Control-F or Command-F — Don't be a prat. Lars T. (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC

I've nowiki'd your RFC, for the same reasons as before: you can't write these things neutrally. Experience suggests that you won't be able to see this even when it is pointed out to you, so I suggest you find someone on "your side" (not that there are sides, of course) to help you reword it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, look at how I wrote this RfC. It probably isn't perfect, but I strove to take no sides in the RfC heading itself. I started off with the basic question, explained the background and scope of the disagreement, and what was on the table to resolve the issue. Cla68 (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying one line would suffice? To do that then how am i to present the refs showing this is a factual account and not fringe? Look, as it stands the pov tag will not be allowed to be removed until certain editors have forced their POV into the article, thats not on. mark nutley (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

One line to state the core issue, then a short paragraph under that in the "Discussion" section which explains in greater detail, without taking a side, that includes all the links and diffs needed to help unfamiliar editors make a decision. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your revert of my nowiki'ing was a mistake; it is a shame that Cla won't tell you so. But I came here to tell you not to comment in the section marked Comments from uninvolved users unless you want to discredit your RFC yet further William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No it was not, your mistake was yet again interrupting this process, If a question is asked of the rfc then of course i have to comment in that section. You have come here to tell me nothing as you have already destroyed the process again mark nutley (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You've destroyed your RFC, not me; just as you did the last one. You should not have moved my comment from the top section - plenty of other RFC's have this. It appears that you cannot cope if the top section is not framed exclusively as you want it, and your obvious bias not pointed out. Really, you should take advice on this, and listen to it, *before* you file these things. And your removal of my comment is in rather stark contrast to *your* commenting in a section specifically marked as for uninvolved users William M. Connolley (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You are in error, your comment should have gone into the area for uninvolved editors, whic his were i moved it to. My comments were in direct response to questions about the rfc, now do go away there`s a good lad mark nutley (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Just something to note for future RFC's. This line "There are several refs to back the claim that this is a full and factual account of the history of the hockey stick." alone would go against NPOV. It's setting the stage for a particular viewpoint - "full and factual". Essentially, it's asking "Am I right, or am I right?". That's going to put people on the defensive that might disagree with you - you've called them wrong right from the start after all.

I agree with you that, when a question is asked by an uninvolved editor, you probably should respond if it's process, not view related. If an editor is espressing their view, I'm not sure it's helpful for you to respond to their points, but expect nobody else to respond to your point. That's not really fair. Respond to process questions ("Should have also asked if the POV tag is correct"), but if it's their view, I'd stay in the involved section. If you jump all over any outside editor that expresses a view counter to yours, what does that say to a future uninvolved editor? Ravensfire (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, it may however prove pointless as some editors seem to want to merge the book article in with two other articles, i am unsure on how to deal with this. The book and this article are more than notable to have their own articles, so if his blog is not i don`t see how all three should be merged into one, it will trivialize and minimize both the book and Montford mark nutley (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything on the talk pages for Montford or the book about a merge. It seems he's quoted at least occasionally by various media, which is a plus. If you can find something about him being a commentator for print/televised media, that would strengthen the case. I don't think the blog is notable enough for a seperate article, but I would create a section on his article for the blog, and move related parts of the article there.

I'd also suggest a slight reorg of the article. Have three sections under climate change advocacy - book, media, blog- in that order. He's most notable for the book, so lead with that. The other two are interchangeble. You've got some stuff in Personal related to the book and the blog - move 'em out of there.

For the rest - it's a jungle out there. You've made some mistakes, and there are people on both sides who will jump all over any small mistake. Rather than be defensive, see if there's some validity to the mistake and if so, correct it and thank the person. You're both here to create something, right? So if they spot a mistake of yours, aren't they doing you a favor by making sure the material you put out is the best possible? If you think they're wrong, explain why. (And yes, both sides can use the same advice) The area is such a cesspool that I have no doubt that many editors won't touch it. I'm one of them. The recent approach of civil disagreement/civil POV by several editors will, ultimately, be successful if they can get under the skin of the other side. On top of that, people will take your words with greater weight when you are the noble editor. Ravensfire (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes look pretty good. I'm going make some minor tweaks/MOS changes, but not too bad. Ravensfire (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please refactor...

This is certainly not an OK comment. I don't know such a thing, in fact i disagree vehemently (and have since before you even created the articles - see my comments on it at ATren's talk). You are not only assuming bad faith - you are accusing people of it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I am most certainly not assuming bad faith. If the book was not notable then it would have gone to afd. If Montford was not notable he would already be gone under the new blp rules. That is what i meant when i said you know it. If they were not notable enough for there own articles the ywould already have been deleted. It is you who are assuming bad faith here, not i mark nutley (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

By stating that our position is "Bollocks and you know it" - you are accusing of us bad faith. I (as i said above) certainly don't "know it". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Judith Curry

Can I recommend that you read my last post at the talk page one more time? Especially the last sentence. I actually agreed with you that the fact that she engages with skeptics is notable :) Thepm (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why the removal of her posts and links on sceptic blogs? As the article now stands it looks like she wagged her finger over at real climate and that`s about it. I`m not happy with the wholesale removal of reliably sourced material which is a notable moment in her life mark nutley (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I didn't remove it, but I can understand why WMC did. It makes the same point over and over. Add a sentence noting that she's posted at WUWT or that she's engaged with skeptics or something like that. I think that's all the addition we need on that.

I'll add that you should also try to add some stuff unrelated to climategate. She's been in academia for 20 years and her article sounds like the only thing she's ever done is slag off at the climategate crew. That's what WMC seems to be so cranky about. Thepm (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ask the average guy who she is, they will not know her from her academic career, the ywill know her for her responses to climatgate and her willingness to talk to sceptics. If wmc felt it was unbalanced he should have added to the article, not gut it. mark nutley (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion should be on the article talk page, not here, if you want others to contribute or read. But if you're just talking amongst yourselves, fine William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We're just chatting. MN was about to serve tea and biscuits. Want some? Thepm (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

MN - please *read* the tags you use. The one you used says "The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page". There is no discussion from you on the talk page justifying that tag. Please add some, instead of wasting your time whingeing about you getting the wrong tag William M. Connolley (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Given you have replied in the section were this is being discussed what are you waffling on about? mark nutley (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

[6] --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You've got not-very-long to redact that William M. Connolley (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Done as requested mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Far too close to an WP:NPA violation for someone on civility parole.[7] Guettarda (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Tell me something Guettarda, am i the only one here on a civility parole? Why are you not mentioning [8] [9] [10] these to WMC? mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"But he did it too" is not a defence. Guettarda (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify "are you incapable" is a direct comment on the person's intellectual ability and thus a comment on the person. The comments you linked to a comments about your editing behaviour. The latter is acceptable, the former is a violation of our policy on personal attacks. To violate that policy while under civility parole is a serious problem. Guettarda (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish, it is a straight question to someone who is studiously avoiding a question put to them, it is not a comment on a persons intellect at all, and i am unsure how you could even reach such a conclusion mark nutley (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Incapable of giving an answer"? That sounds to me like a comment on their cognitive abilities. Guettarda (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No saying "you are incapable" would be a comment on their cognitive abilities "Are you incapable" is a question mark nutley (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No - "are you incapable" is a rhetorical question, a comment phrased as a question, along the lines of "are you stupid?". "Are you able to answer a question" would still be a personal attack though, since the only way the answer could be "no" would be if there was serious mental impairment. It's not like asking "can you place a ball with a cricket bat" or "can you place the red ball in the corner pocket", since these are specific skills and there's no shame in answering "no". If you ask "can you answer a question?" you only expect "no" if the person is seriously impaired. So asking the question is the same as asking "are you cognitively or intellectually impaired". And note, you phrased it as a rhetorical question - in other words, you weren't asking, you were accusing. Guettarda (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a straight question "Are you able to answer a question" why yes, yes i can. "Are you able to answer a question" well no, i don`t actually have an answer. There you go, how hard is that question to answer, it`s not is it. Now be a good lad and do bugger off mark nutley (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about civility, but "bugger off" is problematic. Much like I said with respect to calling people "fucking retards" being ok where I work, there are many areas where suggesting people have anal sex is considered the ultimate of offenses. It's probably in your best interest not do do that again. Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please try to focus. To begin with "are you able to answer a question" is not the same as "are you able to answer [a specific] question". Regardless, that was a simplification on my part to address a particular part of your comment. "Are you incapable of answering a question" cannot be answered with "yes, I don't have an answer". It cannot be answered because it's a rhetorical question. And either you're calling someone mentally incompetent, or you're calling them dishonest. Both of these are personal attacks. Neither is acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, lets make this simple, here is what i wrote Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above? Now lets see if i can answer it.

• "Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above?" Of course i am, here it is
• "Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above?" No, i am not.

Yes, i can see how that is a rhetorical question which can`t be answered all right mark nutley (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not commenting on the rest of them, but [11] is not even remotely a personal attack - in fact, it's just plain really good advice. Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Implying i am unable to write an RFC without aid is insulting mark nutley (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

MN: you've had not one but *two* RFC's aborted for non-neutrality (and it wasn't just me that thought that - even LHVU thought so too. In fact *everyone* except you thought so). So you have a proven track record of writing non-neutral RFC's, *and* being unable to see that they aren't neutral. So you need someone to check the next one before you trip up again. Stating (not implying) that you are unable to do this is merely to state the obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Without comment on the facts regarding your inability to write a neutral RFC, best practices for writing an RFC are either to reach a consensus on what exactly to ask, to write the RFC for the enemy, or at the very least, to have a neutral party help you write the rfc. It's just good advice. Take it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case, WMC is right about the RFC. He didn't say you are incapable - those are your words - but it's a strong suggestion to ask someone else to review the RFC before you post it. That's actually just good advice, and you got the same from Hipocrite. Find someone that would argue the opposite side from you and work with them to get a neutral RFC statement. You've had two shot down for not conforming to the generally accepted standards of WP. That suggests that what you consider neutral and what the WP community considers neutral aren't the same. Think about that. Ravensfire (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No no no

When will you learn? Sigh. Now get someone to read the thing and tell you what is wrong with it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you think is wrong with it? It is a straight question asked in the rfc mark nutley (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Why bother answer? I've told you the obvious before and you've ignored me until one of "your side" has told you the same thing. Go ask one of them, or someone neutral, or anyone really except yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who has stopped it, either tell me what you think is wrong so i can fix it or i`ll just revert you mark nutley (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just added your WP:RFC request. I strongly suggest that William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) do not intervene like this on the way we work on Wikipedia. This is borderline disturbance of the project. Nsaa (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, do you think it is neutral enough the way it is written? Is there something i should change? mark nutley (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Free service announcement: The grammar is horrible. And you might want to consider what "neutral" means. Here is a hint: Don't put your opinion anywhere in it, not even when you think it's fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Stephan, i`ll move my opinion down mark nutley (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Better. But still, is that the question you want answered? Compare "Should I be allowed to pour a litre of ice water into my bed before I go to sleep?" Assume you get a yes on that one - what will you do? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sleep in a wet bed. This i think is a question which has to be sorted, you guys keep removing the word climategate from everywere, it`s ridiculous. The world laughs and still it continues. There is no reason to not use climategate in article sections or text. for gods sake mate, it`s what the entire world calls it mark nutley (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not asking if Climategate should be used. And you have a very myopic view of "the entire world". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Made more clear per your suggestion. Stephan, outside of wikipedia what is it called? mark nutley (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They've forgotten what Jimbo so clearly stated at his user talk page "I think there's a pretty strong case to be made for "Climategate" as the name for the article, as it is clearly the most common name in the press for this. I think it fairly obvious why people don't want it called that - but that call is not up to Wikipedia. We must call it what it is called, and what it is called, is climategate. (This is not a decree, but my point is that it is pretty obvious that - contrary to the wild claims of coverup and so on - we do have a well-sourced article that is comprehensive and informative and fair... but with a pretty silly title that no one uses. The scandal here is clearly not the "hacking incident" - about which virtually nothing is known. The scandal is the content of the emails, which has proven to be deeply embarrassing (whether fairly or unfairly) to certain people.) The result of the silly title is that there is traction (unfairly) for claims that Wikipedia is suppressing something.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)" [12](oh he is just an ordinary user yeah). And we have the hole world reporting as this name Climategate usage in the first three/four months and in a longer and longer list of books [13]. Nsaa (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A compromise was reached about the article title that required concessions by both "sides". You're relitigating a closed issue. Why not just accept that and move on to something more productive? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Chris, please read the RFC, it is for the use of climategate in section titles or text. Not as an article title mark nutley (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read the RfC. Same principle applies. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you`re beyond hope, bye mark nutley (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't be impatient

I've restored the tags William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

six days is enough, consensus is for no merge, and keep the hell of my talk page mark nutley (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's normally best to ask an uninvolved admin to close the merge. See Help:Merging. Guettarda (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Mark, when you add multiple items with multiple references, please adding the material in as separate edits. user:Guettarda notes "it's within accepted practice to undo the entire edit that adds a serious BLP violation". Thus while some of your added material may have been acceptable, some (arguably) was not, and adding it as a single edit means that if anyone can find plausible fault with any part, the entire edit can be reverted. --SPhilbrickT 19:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There was no BLP violation. The words were Dr Currys, from her open letter. The stuff wmc removed was in the article when i moved it to mainspace. I must have forgotten to remove the blog link when i moved it. The exact same words can be found New york Times there. mark nutley (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You missed the point.--SPhilbrickT 19:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No i did not, i know what you meant. But as it was a whole article i moved into mainspace then there was no way to add stuff one edit at a time, wmc removed an entire section based on one bad ref. That`s the point mark nutley (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

And when i do add stuff a bit at a time, [14] the whole lot gets removed anyway. I mean whats the point of trying to improve an article when the people trying to get it deleted remove all the material form it? mark nutley (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent)(ec) That's not quite true. 17:08, 24 April 2010 is the move, but you add a new blog source 15:12, 25 April 2010, after the move, and then, after the whole section had been removed for "actually I'm right - this really is so grossly one-sided as to be a BLP vio. Removing the whole section until it can be fixed," instead of carefully evaluating the section to determine that the sourcing was impecable, you merely reverted the whole section back in - including not only the blogs you incldued, but also the deleted blog comment that Tilman put in. Hipocrite (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That is from her open letter, what the hell is wrong with that?, and i did`nt revert tillman, i reverted wmc. Look, i removed a blog from an article as not reliable. WMC reverted me saying it was a Convenience link to the material being cited. I have just done what he did and i`m in the shit for it. No big surprise really is it mark nutley (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So, to be clear, your argument is "he did it, so why can't I?" The reason is that it's an encyclopedia, so the goal is to make an encyclopedia. If he was wrong when he did it, then he was wrong, but you can't fix his wrong by doing wrong yourself. You were obviously wrong in inserting references to a random blog by someguy (which you continue to do - I thought people have explained to you about a billion times to stop using blogs as sources) and a deleted blog comment that may or may not have been from Dr. Curry. Hipocrite (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I have already said i was wrong, and as it is also to be found in the new york times it is obvious there was no "Putting words into Dr Currys mouth" as was said on the RFE page. Funny one that, wmc gets pulled up again, it`s me how gets sanctioned. Fuck it, it`s all bollocks. mark nutley (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I owe you an apology. You never reinserted the blog comments. I apologize. However, the quotes from Dr. Curry that you attribute to the NYT were not accurate. You quote Dr. Curry as saying "sloppiness." But she never said that. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, you didn't write that either, so I owe you a second apology. While I don't think you conveyed the circiling the wagons quote appropriately, that's a matter for editing, not evidence of bad-acts. It's a shame that you cited a blog for something you should have cited the NYT for. For future refrence, best practice would be to stop linking to blogs entirely. Hipocrite (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for pursuing this, but I'm working on a proposal for changes to 3RR exceptions, and this incident will be central. I'd like to make sure I understand exactly what happened. In this edit, you added several sentences and several references. I'm suggesting that if you had added that material as three edits, then anyone choosing to revert the addition has to assert a BLP violation for every edit - but by adding it as a single edit, they only had to assert a single BLP violation in any part of the edit. I'm not interested in debating now whether any sentence or ref has BLP issues, I'm trying to understand your statement that you couldn't add it as multiple edits. I don't see why. I do understand it was probably easier to copy and paste as one edit, but you said "there was no way to add stuff one edit at a time" and I'm trying to make sense of that statement.--SPhilbrickT 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No problems, look here [15] This is were i added a blog posting of her open letter. [16] This is wmc`s mass removal of material. He could have reverted the bad source, he instead removed everything. Looks like i did actually do what you mention above. But the whole lot was removed on the basis of the last edit i made mark nutley (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Arguably, he should have removed only the questionable material, but by adding the material in as a single edit, coupled with the note about acceptable practice, you made it easy for him to remove it all. --SPhilbrickT 20:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually most of what he removed (sentences comprising 161 of 213 words) was deeply problematic. Apart from the comment sourced to a blog, there was a case where a quote, made in reference to one thing (trust of scientists by the public) was applied to something different (data sharing and openness in the IPCC process). And that wasn't the only problematic part. Guettarda (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's an essay explaining the point I'm trying to make, note especially the section Make small edits

Word to the wise

While I see nothing wrong with this edit, you never know how someone might interpret it. It's just not worth giving people ammunition against you. Guettarda (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Mark, I'd stay away from that page completely. ATren (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You just violated your 1RR restriction...

With this[17], since your previous edits (this[18]) was a partial revert back to Nsaa's version which was reverted here[19] - specifically the paragraphs starting with "A post on the blog led to the ...." and " Andrew Orlowski, writing for The Register after .....".

That is not acceptable. As for the BLP part - you can refer to my talk-page where we have a conversation about that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I actually added new material, There was no reverting done on my part in those edits. Nor is there a blp issue. mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, i just went to self revert but what i added is already gone. Problem solved mark nutley (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, if I were you I would turn off the computer and do something else (watch TV, go for a jog, drink an adult drink, play a video game). Don't come back to Wikipedia until tomorrow. Please, I speak from experience and from watching many, many, other situations like this. Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am going offline now. Thanks. mark nutley (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

re Atmoz probation enforcement request

Please would you consider putting the three diffs, and any subsequent ones, in chronological order. Currently, the first diff is an addition to the edit exampled by the third diff, and the second diff happened before (or after, need to check) the other two. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You're on 3 reverts on Bishop Hill (blog) right now. Not impressive for someone ostensibly on a 1RR limit... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you figure that? I added a source which you removed. I reverted you. Were do you get 3r from? mark nutley (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

18:25, 29 April 2010 revert, 19:40, 28 April 2010 revert. Chris is incorrect about the middle diff - though I suggest for about the billionth time that you stop inserting blog-sourced content into articles. Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you know as well as i do that delingpoles telegraph blog meets wp:rs on the revert thing, looks like i was out an hour. What time does WP run on? your post says 18.48 but mt clock says 19.49 mark nutley (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is 3RR.([20],[21],[22]), even assuming that you miscounted the time (WP:GAMING), you broke your 1RR again today....

The Delingpole stuff is a partial revert of a section on Delingpole from before ([23] - Mark's own version from the 27th.). Mark, please ask someone you trust to help you understand what a revert is, the next time that you break your revert sanction i doubt if people are going to overlook it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is on UTC. While something may skim by RS, using opinion blogs as sources for stuff is acceptable, but not always good or useful. Our best articles use partisan opinion blogs sparingly, to say the least. Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

@Kim, i don`t think i used that delingpole ref before please look here [24] the two delingpole refs are not the ones i just used in the article. @Hipocrite, i know such op-eds need to be used with attribution whic his what i did. As for the time thing, i`ll have to get into the habit of looking at wp times, and not my clock mark nutley (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is from the version on the 27th[25]:

.... And "Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill. It seems the AGW establishment has launched an urgent damage limitation exercise in order to whitewash the Climategate scandal in time for Copenhagen."

And this is from the "new" insertion[26]:

....wrote "Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill. It seems the AGW establishment has launched an urgent damage limitation exercise in order to whitewash the Climategate scandal in time for Copenhagen."

A rather clear partial revert. And you are the one responsible for checking. (and btw. the reference is exactly the same) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, Kim is correct that you are, in fact, on 3rr - I was not aware of [27], which includes the "Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill..." quote, making all 3 of the reverts, in fact, reverts. Probably best to stop reverting entirely, and instead reach consensus on talk pages - try 0rr for a bit. Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like i`ll have to, it`s impossible to keep up with all the changes when everything keeps getting removed :(. mark nutley (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, trust me... walk away from this one entirely, for a while. Talk on the talk page about this, and leave the editing of the article alone for a day or three. See my talk, you're in serious risk of being hauled up for sanctions again, and it will go hard for you. Please step away. And if you are unclear on what reversion is (which is what KDP is suggesting), ask someone to explain it better. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I am Lar, my last edit comment was "Looks like i`m on 0rr" I meant that. And if you look at the article talk page in question you will see i have opened a new section to discuss just this thing mark nutley (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. As a note, I do think you may benefit from a closer study of the revert policy, knowing it cold will help you stay out of trouble. I'd be happy to chat with you about it sometime if you use any sort of messaging... I primarily use gmail and IRC. ++Lar: t/c 02:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks lar, my gmail is linked to my profile here. Shoot me a message so i have your addie. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mark

I hope all is going well in your neck of the woods. I would've been perfectly happy to ignore WMC, but his incredibly rude behavior demanded some sort of response since administrative action is clearly not allowed in his case. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ya all is fine mate, well apart from two RFE`s currently against me, and another one against wmc but were i am to be sanctioned yet again :-) funny old world ain`t it mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by the situation. Email me if you ever want any advice/an ear. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre

Why are you restoring vandalism of your comments [28]? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How is fixing a typo vandalism? mark nutley (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Left a message for you here. You may want to look a bit more carefully at what I reverted. Thepm (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 24 hours

free again

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Per the discussion at the Probation enforcement request page. I understand you wish to appeal to be allowed to work on drafts in userspace, and will note that in the closing statement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for noting that i would like to work in my user space. Might i please be unblocked to continue work on my wips, i will not edit any articles or talkpahes on mainspace for the duration of the 24hr block. I have actually managed to get an article into mainspace today [Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History] and would like to work on her other book [29] and her BLP. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC) I'll note a protest an unblock for works in progress, as the last time this was granted, Mark was unable to grasp the limits of this (creating new articles, editing articles etc). If such an unblock is granted it should be with a specific note that there will be consequences (stated) for breaking these. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Kim, you know full well that was a misunderstanding based on the fact the block before was that i was unblocked but not allowed to edit articles in the probation area. So when i was unblocked the time you are complaining about i assumed it was under the same terms. In fact 2/0 said no harm done as i had not edited articles within the probation area. I know if i am unblocked it will be only to work on my article wips mark nutley (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Mark, i'm sorry to say that you make mistakes to often (conditional unblock => mistake, 1RR => mistake, ...). You jump when you should pussy-foot. My hope is that you will understand that jumping may have consequences - and that this will help you think before acting. As said, if such an unblock is granted with a specific note as to consequences, then i'm not specifically against it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC) WEll how about if i break the unblock by posting in mainspace the block is extended to 48 hrs? Would that suit? mark nutley (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC) (e/c)It will have to be way more specific than that. Last time you also broke parole within hours by posting comments on other user-pages. (and "extented to" is not acceptable, since that means that if you feel the need it will just "move" your 24 hours a bit forward - "extended by" is more acceptable). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry Kim, that is what i meant, if i break the unblock then a 48 hours block will be enacted from when an admin enacts said block mark nutley (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC) I will note on the Probation request talkpage that you are requesting unblock to work in userspace only, and KDP's protest, since I have already subsequently edited the Probation page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Link to relevant unblocking discussion. Link to subsequent discussion after terms were violated. Link to block log. I meant no harm done in the sense that you were not edit warring or any such nonsense, and blocks are preventative rather than punitive - it was by no means okay, but I felt at the time that the best solution would be to note the misunderstanding and move on with building an encyclopedia. No opinion on the current situation, as I have not been following it (your talkpage is still on my watchlist and the heading caught my eye, in case you were wondering). - 2/0 (cont.) 22:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

done ScottyBerg (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

done ScottyBerg (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing restriction per WP:GS/CC/RE

"Marknutley 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." NW (Talk) 20:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Cla68 has agreed to be such a mentor, if you wish. NW (Talk) 20:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I did not formally restrict you from doing so, I would highly advise you to clear this sort of thing with Cla68 first. NW (Talk) 11:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That was done before any restriction from you, and if i see unreliable blog sources in an article i`ll remove them, given my current restriction was brought on by my single use of a blog in a blp you are now telling me not to remove blog sources from blp`s? Erm, no. Also why not have a pop at the experienced editors who actually reverted that blog (which is an attack piece btw) back into the article? So go and have words with WMC and John Quiggin. Hey, maybe they should also have to ask if a source is reliable? and then when they do add content which is reliably sourced and it gets removed they of course can`t put it back, instead they can waste time arguing on talk pages mark nutley (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that this applies certainly to the JBS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

done ScottyBerg (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi Mark, sorry to see you blocked again, you really do need to stay away from those arbitration articles', while you are blocked I have a small job I would like looking at, are you interested, I can mail you the details if you are, shouldn't take more than a two or three hours going through some contributions and making a report as to the edit patterns? Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure mate fire away, i am home most of tomorrow mark (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark, bit late but there is no real rush, better a decent look and a detailed report. I have mailed you. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

so many idiots

So many twats give advice. Fuck the lot of them. Chill chil chill, is the only advice worth llistening to. Polargeo (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well as i was a twat then advice from twats would be ok :o), your advice is good, chill chill chill, cheers mate mark (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Baiting

So a newbie gets blocked for wp:npa, and here we see two editors baiting him quite a bit more than likely in the hopes of getting him blocked again, funny how they scream PA at every given chance yet have no issues in calling others idiot and troll, perhaps someone ought to have a word with them? mark (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

As it was FloNight that comment you should not be unblocked without talking to ARBCOM, I have left him her a note about this request. Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks rob, i had e-mailed brad a few days ago but have not heard back, hence this prodding :o) mark (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no worries, I note you would anyways still be blocked if the block was reverted to the original two weeks anyways. Off2riorob (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment: If you left Flo a note, you left it to her. And Mark, take a look at Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Appeal_to_the_Arbitration_Committee. This may work better than addressing individual arbiters. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually the original block expired this morning - an expiry time of 2010-11-09T08:42:19 - her, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My last email to you stated that you needed to write to ArbCom when you were ready to return to editing. Since your last correspondence to me and ArbCom indicated that you were not returning, I doubt that this was put at the top of their "to-do list". It will likely take awhile to be reviewed, and announced. In the future, I suggest that you write to the full ArbCom mailing list instead of an individual arbitrator to make sure that all arbitrators see all your correspondence in a timely manner. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

K thanks man, mark (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And yes, I'm a female :-). See User:FloNight. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate change case amendment

By motion, the Arbitration Committee has ammended remedies 3.1 and 3.2.1 of the Climate change case to read as follows:

• 3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.
• 3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Committee, 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, however i am still blocked and shall not be editing anything anytime soon :o) mark (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, another request for clarification in the Climate Change case

Sorry to bother you. Here's the request for clarification. Your ability to discuss the case would be affected. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Still blocked john :o) but even if i were not i would not post over there, i`m done with cc articles, they are nothing but trouble mate mark (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Header for archiving

Due to the duck test and having edited under my ip to avoid a 1r restriction (my temper again) arbcom has concluded i have broken my editing restrictions, as such i am not allowed to edit on a new account unless this one is linked to it. As i simply can`t have my name again slandered i am unable to return to wiki, good luck to all mark (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Mark, come on, there is nothing you have to be ashamed of, just accept the conditions and move on, get a new name and link the accounts, the history will get lost in the wiki dust, and edit some new less controversial issues. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

So you were dumb (blunt, but true), and compounded with previous mistakes, ended up in a worse spot. Mark, suck it up, realize that most good, long-term editors HAVE screwed up, especially when new, and deal with the problem. Yeah, you're mistake will haunt you for a while. So fix it. *sigh* The editing under your IP is disappointing to find out though, and really hurts your credibility. Ah well - good luck. A suggestion though - delete the Wikipedia shortcut from your computer so you don't come back here. All it will do is end badly for you. Ravensfire (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Not blunt at all, straight talking is what i like, and yes i was a tit. I hope to hear back from arbcom some time during the next ice age :o) BTW Scott, i did not see Bwilkins remark as baiting. mark (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To do should i ever be unblocked

In the first report into communism in Romania which came from the Romanian President [[Traian Basescu] and which which was read to the Romanian parliament it has been estimated that between 500,000 and 2 million people died under the communist regimes. Basescu has stated "the 1945-1989 communist regime was "illegitimate and criminal"."

Any progress on your unblock request? Is it stuck in committee somewhere? With regard to your text: Please read your sources more carefully. At least the BBC does not say "read to the Romanian parliament", but "presented to...". Lengthy reports are rarely read out (or, I suspect, read at all ;-). Instead, they are presented with a short summary. Also, the BBC did not write "between 500,000 and 2 million people died under the communist regimes" - given that Romania has more than 20 million people, it would be very unusual if less than 10 million died over a 44 year time span. What the BBC writes is that "as many as two million people were killed or persecuted" - it's not about the number of deaths, but about the number of victims of persecutions. Not all of them were killed, and, what's more, of course a whole lot more Romanians died normally (but still "under the communist regimes"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting to get a full response back :) Your right regarding the source, but it is just draft stuff to keep me amused for now. It is nigh on impossible to get any form of accurate numbers from romania about the communist era, not surprising really as the same people are in power now as were then mark (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Franz Ziereis expand on this evil bastard mark (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Holodomor

In response to TFD`s query [30] the photo`s were taken by one cardinal Theodor Innitzer [31] [32] and are authentic mark (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This site Petri keeps linking to [33] in which he says Unless evidence to the contrary is presented, these twenty-one pictures are the only photographs of the famine that may be accepted as both genuine and authentic shows he is not very careful at looking at his sources, for though that site is obviously not a RS the guy says "It now appears that the genuine and authentic photographs in Ammende's book were taken by Alexander Wienerberger. See his Hart auf Hart: 25 Jahre Ingenieur in Sowjetrussland which contains many of the photographs in Ammende's book, and the collection of photographs from Cardinal Theodor Innitzer's archives in Vienna in The 1933 Original Photographs from Karkiv, Ukraine." so i reckon petri is very wrong as his source clearly says that the good cardinals pics are authentic mark (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to this. My view is that photographs that have been published in mainstream media or books are acceptable, unless they have subsequently been shown to be hoaxes in mainstream media or books. I cannot find any publication of this photo in reliable sources. That does not mean it has not been published, but we should find out if it has. BTW the cardinal did not take the photos, he published them. TFD (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Dunno if you have seen this link [34] it is the State Committee on Archives of Ukraine and credits the image in question (the starving child) to the cardinals archive mark (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you know if the UA has provided any commentary on the collection? (I do not speak Ukrainian.) Assuming the UA is a reliable source, then if they say these are pictures taken in Ukraine 1932-33, then we can assume they are accurate. If they say they were claimed by the Cardinal to be accurate or, worse, cast doubt on them, then they may not be reliable. TFD (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The only commentary provided is that the images come from the cardinal, they certainly do not say anything to cast doubt on the authenticity of the images. Given this plus the time magazine source i would have to say the images are authentic mark (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the list of photos at Ukrainian state archive site: original translation

Only the first 37 depict famine victims. Of these most originate from the Innitzer collection, most of these (1–23) are by Alexander Wienerberger and are authenticated here. The ones not from Innitzer are numbers 24–31 and are stated to originate from this publication:

• Prymak, Thomas M. (1983). "The Great Ukrainian Famine". Forum (54): 23–28. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Numbers 24, 26, 27, 31 are included in the Daily Express suspects

Numbers 25, 28–31 are Walker forgeries, number 25 has a known 1921 source, see File:Horse of Great Famine.jpg.

Numbers 32–37 are from Innitzer, but their true origin in unknown. The child is number 35. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• A The site you are linking to (garethjones.org) is a self published site and quite frankly is bollocks.
• BFile:Horse of Great Famine.jpg was uploaded by you, and quite frankly you most certainly are not a reliable source and of course is also taken from the bollocks site you keep citing.
• C You are not welcome on my talk page, your smearing of my name was a despicable thing to do and i want no discourse with such as yourself. You may discuss matters with me on article talk pages should i ever get unblocked. mark (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

On Tottle who for some weird reason petri is citing.

• William L. Hewitt. Defining the horrific: readings on genocide and Holocaust in the 20th century. 7 October 2003. Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0131100848 page 136 "With his book Douglas Tottle has become a sort of guru to a strange collection of latter- day famine-genocide deniers"
• Di Su. Evolution in reference and information services: the impact of the Internet. 9 April 2002. Routledge. ISBN 978-0789017239 page 138 "Tottles is the only book to support his view" so obviously the guy is fringe and is not a RS. Why petri wishs to use him as a source is beyond me mark (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Stuff to do

For Communist Terrorism

"The USSR’s resort to terrorism signalized an abandonment of the long-standing fiction that Communism is part of the movement of ‘history’; that in order to win, it does not need any special measures. When terrorism is defined as ‘active measures’ that can and ‘ought’ to be part of the policy of a Communist State, we see a shift to a frank acceptance by Communist ideologues that their system is based on power not reason or the forces of

history".

Franz Ziereis

pages 6,7,8.

• James Waller. Becoming evil: how ordinary people commit genocide and mass killing. 1 March 2007. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195180930

Holodomor

Instead of people edit warring they really ought to use the newest sources. "Three to five million of this number died in Ukraine and in the heavily Ukrainian-populated northern Kuban, among the richest grain producing areas in Europe."

That seems reasonable and I will add your comments to the talk page. But I expect there will be opposition to them. TFD (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To get unblocked

For what it might be worth, I think you would probably want to make a request here that someone file a request for you to be unblocked, probably at WP:RFAR, and say exactly why you believe you should be unblocked. This would probably include either saying that you won't do whatever it was you did again, and/or that you thought the block excessive, or just throwing yourself at the mercy of the court and begging in your most pathetic manner to get unblocked. Should that attempt be made and not work, you'd probably want to follow the procedure at WP:ARBCOM#BASC.

I don't know the details of the matter which created this situation, so I don't think it would make sense for me to comment much beyond what I have above. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If however you do want to file a request to be unblocked, pleass indicate as much here, and state what you would want to say in the material to be posted at RFAR. I have this page watchlisted, and I could either link to your comments here, or reproduce them there, at your discretion. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer John, very good of you. Sadly i have been informed via e-mail that i have to wait till the arb elections are over and that i might be unblocked january 1st 2011 if all new arb`s agree to it. I`ll read over WP:ARBCOM#BASC and see if it is worth a go though, thanks mark (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark, what are you blocked for? I thought you had a two week block going on but now I see it's indefinite but no reason is given as to why it's indefinite. Sorry, I haven't been following along to see what happened. I thought I saw that you had been reset back to the two weeks. I think you should try to see if someone will help you get unblocked because the elections are coming up and you should be able to participate unless you did something so horrible that deserves an indefinite to your account. If this is sensitive, feel free to email me. Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I am blocked for being a naughty boy :o) I did a few edits under my IP. As you no doubt know i have anger management issues :) Hence the block, i was using my IP do get around a 1R restriction on an article. I don`t think i did anything to horrible and it would be nice to be unblocked (i have created a few articles while blocked and would like to have them in mainspace) i should also like the chance to take part in the elections, i never have had the chance before and it would be interesting to take part. I think i have now been blocked since 12:26, 17 October 2010. It seems like i have been blocked for long enough to me really. mark (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Understand what you're saying, but to WP:EVADE in order to get around an ArbCom-enforced 1RR was something you knew was more than inappropriate. Your follow-on anger-related issues just upped the ante, as the expression goes. You knew better, you did it anyway. To say that you think you've been blocked long enough without expressing your true understanding of why the block was for so long is not helping. You have a block log longer than my ... errr ... list of speeding tickets :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I bet i have more speeding tickets than you, yes i also get road rage :o). I know why i was blocked mate and i know i what i did was wrong, thing is when you have a few beers come home see some eejit has been messing about, so you lose your rag and act like a tit, then wake up the next day, well by then it`s too late to do anything about it has already been reverted and then you can`t self revert. Keeping your gob shut seems like the best course of action at that point sadly. Yes i was a tit, and yes i fucked up, but i`m not the first editor to do so, and a lot of them are still editing. I already gave my word via e-mail that i will use only this account to edit, not really a lot else i can say is there. mark (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You could try using upper case I instead of lower case i. People are more sympathetic then. Polargeo (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This "I don`t think i did anything to horrible" is not going to help your cause, Mark. I think you've complained when other editors ignored or gamed restrictions placed on them (WMC?). The rest of your message will help though. Welcome to the world of ArbCom decisions - it's not just an admin block anymore. Combine that with socking to evade restrictions and trying to lie (quite convincingly too, more's the pity), and you ended up with ArbCom on you, not just AE. The timing sucks for you, but I think the timing is what's really causing the delays. Ravensfire (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

When I say not to horrible I mean not trying to out people or making personal attacks, I know what I did was not a nice thing to do mate, it was low and cheating. mark (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP Violation

[35] someone using youtube to reference content on a living person. mark (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

[36] use of a blog to source blp information mark (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

[37] Silly vandalism mark (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD? Funny

[38] Well his uni must have a crap library really :) No books which look at communist ideology and terrorism? Nor non which deals with communist terrorism? So lets see, what do we have here in my library.

The classic vision of the communist ideology is found in the pages of the Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels, 1954 [1848]). While sharply critical of “utopian” socialism, which emphasized the viability of small communities, Marx and Engels themselves envisioned a scientifically based utopia that would arise with the destruction of capitalism and the abolition of its institutions. With the concentration of power in the proletariat, “we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” (ibid., p. 37). Engels subsequently referred to communist society as a “universal emancipation” and “the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom” (Engels, 1959 [1880], pp. 111, 109). Utopian elements also appeared in Engels’ characterization of the life of preindustrial workers in England (Engels, 1993 [1845]). While the concrete depiction of life in the communist utopia has always remained elusive, the ideal of freedom from capitalist or capitalist-derived oppression has remained a constant element. The idea reappeared in altered form in the ideologies of terrorist movements in the United States and

Western Europe in the 1960s and 1970s.

Neil J. Smelser. The faces of terrorism: social and psychological dimensions Princeton University Press. Bold bit tells the story, communist ideologue and terrorism. And of course there is always Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations By Yonah Alexander, Dennis A. Pluchinsky which totally deals with communist terrorism. Gotta wonder what uni does not have this book in it mark (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Also see *Marcus C. Levitt, Tatyana Novikov. Times of trouble: violence in Russian literature and culture. 1st edition. University of Wisconsin Press 15 Dec 2007. ISBN 978-0299224301 pages 152/153 [39] for the "Origins of soviet state terrorism" mark (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

See also "These groups, which terrorist scholar Dennis Pluchinsky has called the fighting communist organizations (FCOs), found their ideological guide in Marxism- Leninism. He has identified 13 principles as forming the core of their ideology".

• 1. The world is viewed through “dialectical materialism,” the Marxist-Leninist approach to the analysis of history.
• 2. Capitalism is the root cause of all the problems of the proletariat.
• 3. Capitalism can only be displaced by force.
• 4. The proletariat does not currently possess the necessary revolutionary consciousness to carry out the violent overthrow of the capitalist system.
• 5. The traditional communist parties have forfeited their right to represent the proletariat.
• 6. The fighting communist organizations are forced to fill the revolutionary void of traditional communist parties.
• 7. In order to survive its present crisis, capitalism must resort to industrial “restructuring.”
• 8. Imperialism is also in crisis.
• 9. Western Europe serves as the “imperialist center” that is composed of a “chain of states,” manufactured by the United States.
• 10. The latent fascist tendencies of the capitalist, imperialist state must be exposed to the proletariat.
• 11. The revolutionary war against imperialism will be a long, protracted armed struggle.
• 12. The revolutionary armed struggle consists of two phases. The first phase would armed propaganda phase, with three components: a revolutionary strategy, communist organization, and initiation of armed combat. The second and final the revolutionary civil war. The “armed propaganda” phase reflects the anarchist propaganda by the deed” concept.
• 13. The next revolutionary stage for an FCO is the “fighting Communist party.”"

• Jerrold M. Post. The Mind of the Terrorist: The Psychology of Terrorism from the IRA to Al-Qaeda. 3 April 2008. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1403966117

See also There is also broad coverage of many of the major and minor groups in the communist, anarchist, neofascist, and national-separatist milieus, as well as “pro-state” groups.

• Christopher C. Harmon. Terrorism today. 18 October 2007. Routledge. 2nd Edition ISBN 978-0415773003

See also This Encyclopedia lists "Communist" 143 times. Now when a book which is devoted to terrorism lists communist 143 times, well shit I reckon there may be something in that.

• Harvey W. Kushner. Encyclopedia of Terrorism Sage Publications. 14 January 2003. ISBN 978-0761924081

Mark, here's a source you can use for this article.[40] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I have quite a few sources covering the communist terrorist insurgency in Malaya, this will fit in very nicely mark (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A Time Magazine article from 1951. Views of colonialism (and other attitues) have changed in the last 60 years. TFD (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes views have changed, but not on terrorism. mark (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD? Funny

[41] Well his uni must have a crap library really :) No books which look at communist ideology and terrorism? Nor non which deals with communist terrorism? So lets see, what do we have here in my library.

The classic vision of the communist ideology is found in the pages of the Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels, 1954 [1848]). While sharply critical of “utopian” socialism, which emphasized the viability of small communities, Marx and Engels themselves envisioned a scientifically based utopia that would arise with the destruction of capitalism and the abolition of its institutions. With the concentration of power in the proletariat, “we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” (ibid., p. 37). Engels subsequently referred to communist society as a “universal emancipation” and “the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom” (Engels, 1959 [1880], pp. 111, 109). Utopian elements also appeared in Engels’ characterization of the life of preindustrial workers in England (Engels, 1993 [1845]). While the concrete depiction of life in the communist utopia has always remained elusive, the ideal of freedom from capitalist or capitalist-derived oppression has remained a constant element. The idea reappeared in altered form in the ideologies of terrorist movements in the United States and

Western Europe in the 1960s and 1970s.

Neil J. Smelser. The faces of terrorism: social and psychological dimensions Princeton University Press. Bold bit tells the story, communist ideologue and terrorism. And of course there is always Europe's red terrorists: the fighting communist organizations By Yonah Alexander, Dennis A. Pluchinsky which totally deals with communist terrorism. Gotta wonder what uni does not have this book in it

Also see *Marcus C. Levitt, Tatyana Novikov. Times of trouble: violence in Russian literature and culture. 1st edition. University of Wisconsin Press 15 Dec 2007. ISBN 978-0299224301 pages 152/153 [42] for the "Origins of soviet state terrorism"

See also "These groups, which terrorist scholar Dennis Pluchinsky has called the fighting communist organizations (FCOs), found their ideological guide in Marxism- Leninism. He has identified 13 principles as forming the core of their ideology".

• 1. The world is viewed through “dialectical materialism,” the Marxist-Leninist approach to the analysis of history.
• 2. Capitalism is the root cause of all the problems of the proletariat.
• 3. Capitalism can only be displaced by force.
• 4. The proletariat does not currently possess the necessary revolutionary consciousness to carry out the violent overthrow of the capitalist system.
• 5. The traditional communist parties have forfeited their right to represent the proletariat.
• 6. The fighting communist organizations are forced to fill the revolutionary void of traditional communist parties.
• 7. In order to survive its present crisis, capitalism must resort to industrial “restructuring.”
• 8. Imperialism is also in crisis.
• 9. Western Europe serves as the “imperialist center” that is composed of a “chain of states,” manufactured by the United States.
• 10. The latent fascist tendencies of the capitalist, imperialist state must be exposed to the proletariat.
• 11. The revolutionary war against imperialism will be a long, protracted armed struggle.
• 12. The revolutionary armed struggle consists of two phases. The first phase would armed propaganda phase, with three components: a revolutionary strategy, communist organization, and initiation of armed combat. The second and final the revolutionary civil war. The “armed propaganda” phase reflects the anarchist propaganda by the deed” concept.
• 13. The next revolutionary stage for an FCO is the “fighting Communist party.”"

• Jerrold M. Post. The Mind of the Terrorist: The Psychology of Terrorism from the IRA to Al-Qaeda. 3 April 2008. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1403966117

See also There is also broad coverage of many of the major and minor groups in the communist, anarchist, neofascist, and national-separatist milieus, as well as “pro-state” groups.

• Christopher C. Harmon. Terrorism today. 18 October 2007. Routledge. 2nd Edition ISBN 978-0415773003

See also This Encyclopedia lists "Communist" 143 times. Now when a book which is devoted to terrorism lists communist 143 times, well shit I reckon there may be something in that.

• Harvey W. Kushner. Encyclopedia of Terrorism Sage Publications. 14 January 2003. ISBN 978-0761924081

mark (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)