Talk:Gore effect

{{hangon|The deletion of this user space page is being appealed so there is no point in deleting this talk page until that matter is resolved. Note this conversation wherein 3 other editors in good standing felt it was OK for Mark to work on this in his own user space.}}

To try to help you along, this was the article which was deleted:

The Gore Effect is a satirical expression which refers to occasions when unseasonably cold weather coincides with an Al Gore speech on global warming or with other climate change-related activism. The term has been used to sardonically suggest that that there is no anthropogenic global warming.

See also

• Global warming controversy-the political and media debate.

Feedback

You asked for feedback. It seems to be exceptionally poorly sourced for a BLP. The language is very slanted. I feel this exists solely to propagate negative views of its subject. If this subject merits coverage it can be written, in context, into the main bio. If it doesn't then this article doesn't need to exist in any form. --TS 14:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony it`s not a blp, were did you get that idea from? This article is about the phrase "The Gore Effect" noting more, it is no different to the article about bushisms in fact. --mark nutley (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

An article about Bushisms is also a BLP and would have to pass the same tests I apply here. --TS 14:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it don`t matter now does it, it`s been deleted. chris got his petty revenge did`nt he.

Everything in the article was well sourced, and i fail to see any issue other than spite to get it removed. --mark nutley (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

External links

• Blog entry: "The Gore Effect, Cont."Link

reply to bozmo

Thanks mate, i think mine has a tad more in the way of links and stuff, i`ll keep working on it as time allows :) --mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Refocusing the perspective of the piece a bit?

I see that others have been adding to the list of references. I will try to do so as well and I see that some of the same ones I have found are already there!

I wonder if it would be beneficial to refocus the article a bit to somehow approach it from the pop-culture phenomenon that is associated with this term. It is widely used in the media, and some additional sources about the topic as opposed to simply using the term would be helpful.

Other possible angles include: use within political commentary and/or comics, see [1] for one example.

Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I`d like to thank you guys for helping out, it`s real good of you :) --mark nutley (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo.

I see that the photo has been deleted. If this thing survives I'll photoshop up a suitable replacement and upload it myself so that there are no copyright issues. I don't know why it was deleted. Was it a copyright issue or something else? --GoRight (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It was an attack image to accompany an attack article. Of course it was deleted, and any replacement is going to get CSD'd as soon as it gets uploaded for the same reason. Don't waste your time. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. You are claiming that an as of yet non-existent image is an attack image. Please review WP:AGF. --GoRight (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I do assume good faith, but not when the assumption has already been disproved. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? Please demonstrate that my non-existent image is an attack image. --GoRight (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I don't have to bother, actually. A photo similar to the one found in this article would be sufficient as long as fair use rules could be applied. I'll have to look into that. --GoRight (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The image wsa my own work, no copyright issues involved. If the article survives chriso`s attack i can reupload it. --mark nutley (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's your own work why is this identical copy sourced to an unknown author on a blog? And why did you upload this image which is overprinted with "neoconnews.com"? Stealing images off other websites and passing them off as your own is very much not tolerated and will earn you a permanent block if you're not careful. I'm going to be looking very closely at any further image uploads you make. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you are either incredibly stupid or are trying to muddy the waters, the image in the article was one i made myself i still have it on my desktop and can upload to image shack to prove it. The first i decided agaisnt as i was not to sure of the copyright the second was a mistake and if you check the diffs it says "uploaded wrong image by mistake" Call me a liar and plagiarist again and i will have to follow the procedures here to have you either warned or sanctioned. I recommend you check your facts before making wild accusations again. --mark nutley (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would one need photoshop to create an acceptable image for this article? Please reivew Wikipedia:IMAGE#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature. A funny photoshopped picture of Al Gore is not of an Encyclopedic Nature. A picture of Al Gore in the winter does not illustrate this article - it's an invitation to WP:OR. Please try to be serious. Do not upload that image again. Hipocrite (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)