User talk:ChrisO~enwiki

Old discussions now at /Archive 1 / /Archive 2 / /Archive 3 / /Archive 4 / /Archive 5 / /Archive 6 / /Archive 7 / /Archive 8 / /Archive 9 / /Archive 10 / /Archive 11 / /Archive 12 / /Archive 13 / /Archive 14 / /Archive 15 / /Archive 16 / /Archive 17 / /Archive 18 / /Archive 19 / /Archive 20 / /Archive 21 / /Archive 22 / /Archive 23 / /Archive 24 / /Archive 25 / /Archive 26 / /Archive 27 / /Archive 28

Please add new comments below.

TheSmokingGun.com

Greetings, You participated in a previous discussion about TheSmokingGun.com and whether it can be considered a reliable source. I don't feel that a clear consensus was reached and have reopened the discussion here, should you choose to participate. Regardless, have a Happy New Year!--otherlleft 20:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

No problem... I completely agree that this should be discussed (you will note that I started a thread for just such a discussion), and I made the edit expecting that my edit would be reverted. I have found that it often takes both opening a discussion and making a bold edit to generate a propper discussion. Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My experience too. Welcome to the BRD club. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

the funny thing is that I have never said BRD was invalid... but I have said that discussion is needed first. Good for the goose and all that.  :>) Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Probation tagging

Thank you for adding the new climate change probation to the relevant talkpages. I seem to recall that there is a bot used for similar well-defined repetitive tasks by various WikiProjects - might not such a solution be easier? - 2/0 (cont.) 02:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but my knowledge of bots is about as extensive of my knowledge of the nightlife on Alpha Centauri... -- ChrisO (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well for your help, Awickert (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I left a question for you on the AN climate change discussion page, by the way. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Complaint

As required, this is the formal notice that I have filed complaint against you for violation of the Wikipedia censorship protocols that have been placed on the entries Dog and Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I think you're probably right, Chris, don't mess with the complaint page any more. Let Nothughthomas do as he wishes and wait for somebody else to look at the situation. --TS 04:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

another scibaby sockpuppet?

Has anybody run a checkuser on NoThoughtThomas yet? He sure went from zero to sixty in an instant. Bertport (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

He may be a sockpuppet of User:Saldezza. See WP:AN#Saldezza followup issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Multi-user complaint is now being organized against User:ChrisO for not making any effort to inform me of his sockpuppet investigation as required. Details will be forthcoming, as is required. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Objection

I refer you to [1]. Pursuant to that request I further request that you stop all tagging of climate change articles and revert any that you have already tagged until this matter is resolved. --GoRight (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change Probation and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --GoRight (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hubbard/Crowley archive open 4 jan

I was asked to pass this on to you, and don't have an Email address: Gerry Armstrong post --Hartley Patterson (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, already aware of it. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Reichstag

It is good advice and I am sure you are only trying to help, but it is my suspicion that that user would prefer not to interact with you at the moment. Just a thought. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am so out of it

All of a sudden I find article on probation tags everywhere. I didn't see such a big effort to inform editors that this debate was going on and in fact I missed it completely. When I looked at the debate it seemed to involve a very small "in-crowd" and a few hacks. This hardly seems to be a community consensus. Whilst I have never been blocked and will always respond to reason I now feel I am treading on egg shells, I can never be WP:BOLD. I think this could potentially backfire big style. This is an area where the crackpots nearly outnumber the "experts". It is NOT Barak Obama and it is not the Balkans (where nearly every editor is a crazy POV pusher anyway ;-) ). i also posted this comment on TS's talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User Empowerment to Begin Aggressive Engagement

User:Tbsdy lives apparently feels he has been empowered to "watch" me, and is construing "watch" as "go after". I say this on the basis of his style and manner of discussion here:

1- Talk:BBC#Clarified_the_BBC.27s_Status_as_Britain.27s_Semi-Official_State_Broadcaster 2- Talk:Art_Bell#Obama_vote 3- Talk:Václav_Klaus&action=edit§ion=10 4 -User_talk:Nothughthomas

He may have been.

If he has not I would plead for you to exercise some type of intervention to bring this situation under control. With great reluctance I almost feel it would be better to perma-ban me at this point rather than let this spiral any further out of control. I've tried earnestly to disengage and retreat from any entry he appears in but he follows me from entry to entry with the apparent single purpose of challenging any content suggestion I make. This is very disruptive to the articles in question. Thank you in advance. Best Regards - Nothughthomas (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent notice on my Talk page

Chris, you know very well that I know the article is on probation. I do not acknowledge this latest reminder you have plastered on my talk page as being any notice of any wrongdoing on my part. If you think I am not acting properly I insist you say what it is that you think I am doing wrong. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I do know this, but notification of you is a formal prerequisite to any request for enforcement under the probation. I don't intend to make any such request at this stage but please see the article talk page for my comments on the material you added. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris, please don't show any restraint here. I think we have reached an impasse and arbitration must be sought. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing without consultation on an article on probation

Chris, you are making controversial changes to the article redirected to by Climategate without prior discussion on the article's Talk page. Please take note that as the article is under probation that you should not be doing this. I ask that you revert and procede to the Talk page where we can decide by consensus if your changes are appropriate. Thank you, Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've explained on the article talk page. Please do not restore the material, as it's a very clear violation of WP:V and WP:BLP. Please also note that the article probation prohibits disruptive editing, which includes "citing unencyclopedic sources". -- ChrisO (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This I deny. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You have made numerous edits WITHOUT SEEKING CONSENSUS. I speak not only of the deletion of material re-added by me to the article but your other edits too. Please revert or I will seek arbitration. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I second Paul's thoughts. This is not acceptable.JettaMann (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

re: Climate Change Probation

Hi ChrisO - Since Al Gore is now on probation, shouldn't Al Gore and the environment also be on probation (regarding Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation). Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out - you're right. If you know of other climate change-related articles that should be tagged but haven't been, please let me know. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure and thanks. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Rajendra_K._Pachauri#Reliably_sourced_claims_being_removed

Your name is being taken in vain at Talk:Rajendra_K._Pachauri#Reliably sourced claims being removed, if you care to comment William M. Connolley (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You having a laugh?

[[2]] How is this an attack page? And why did you blank it?[[3]]I am contesting it of course mark nutley (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We're required to blank pages nominated for speedy deletion as attack pages. If you unblank it again I'll ask for you to be blocked for BLP violations. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No your not i looked at the blanking policy. --mark nutley (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hey. be WP:CIVIL here. Anyhow, editors do have the option of blanking in the realm of speedy deletion when it comes to WP:BLP. Hope this helps. -- Matthew Glennon (^T/_C\^D) 14:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Stalking

Please familiarize yourself with WP:STALK and stop following me around. If you persist it will be considered WP:HARASS and appropriate resolutions will be pursued. --GoRight (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What happened to your new resolution to work cooperatively and avoid spurious use of policy, GoRight? This is a disappointing lapse. --TS 15:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about, GoRight? This has nothing to do with you. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If we're collecting wikilawyering by GR, then include the edit comment here [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's terrible content - incoherent, misspelled and barely even written in English. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, you are not imagining this and you are well within your rights to point this out. I recommend you file a complaint so we can deal with the offending people. JettaMann (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfair accusations

Chris, perhaps in the future you should be a little more circumspect in your accusations of sock puppetry. I notice you are quite active in what by all accounts, appears to be a witchhunt against anyone you (and quite a few others) suspect of being an AWG skeptic. Over 700 Scibaby accusations have been made and 500+ have been banned. 500?? Who could manage that many puppets? I suspect many other innocents have been caught up in this net.

I'd suggest you give a close read to Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry. SPs normally do not engage in discussion before edits and are generally disruptive. My only "crime" it appears, was being inactive for a while (I only edit pages I know something about - what a concept), and being skeptical of AWG. I would also point out that per WP policy, an accusation is not supposed to be made unless the suspected individual is being disruptive. I put it to you that I have not been disruptive (other than disagreeing with you). Please endeavor to adhere to [[WP::Good faith]] in the future. Jpat34721 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You are likely correct in your assessment. There appears to be a core group of about 4-5 AGW activists who devote much of their waking lives to goal-tending AGW related pages. My advice is to file a formal complaint against any offending persons you run across. Even if it doesn't result in a ban for them, at least it puts it on record.JettaMann (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Drivel?

This is just not on. Please remember that the GS/CC include WP:CIVIL. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Michaels

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Patrick Michaels, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

I've just added the tag, so since you're editing there I thought you should know. --TS 19:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I only made one edit, so it seems a bit unnecessary to tag me for that! However, rest assured that I know... -- ChrisO (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

The subject has suffered from Graves' Disease, which the photograph that you have several times inserted into his page unreasonably exploits by revealing the ocular proptosis which is an irreversible consequence of the disease. Do you really think it appropriate that Wikipedia should exploit a physical disability by parading it in this way? I realize you don't like anyone who does not share your views about global warming and so on, but this is going a lot too far. Please reconsider and take that photo down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.85.112 (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

3d Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

To “ChrisO”

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: your wholesale deletions of my changes to this serially inaccurate biographical entry

I should be grateful if the appropriate arbitration procedure could be activated to consider the appropriateness of your recent wholesale reversals of my recent changes to this serially inaccurate biographical entry.

My request to the arbiters is that you and your colleague Dabelstein-Petersen should in future be barred from having any input to this entry, on grounds of repeatedly-demonstrated prejudice and malice towards the subject of the entry.

Please notify me of the procedure for obtaining arbitration in respect of your tampering, and that of Dabelstein-Petersen, with this entry – a tampering which, as I shall now demonstrate, does not conform to Wikipedia’s principles.

I draw the arbiters’ attention to the following comparison between my proposed revisions and your wholesale reversals thereof, and invite them to adjudicate on each of my proposed revisions.

1. I corrected the entry to list the subject’s current occupation, business consultant, first. Yet you reverted to the inaccurate statement that he is, first and foremost, a “journalist”. Yet it is a matter of record that he has not been a journalist since 1992, when he left the Evening Standard. Source: Who’s Who. On studying the history of your revisions to this entry, you have repeatedly reverted to the inaccurate statement that the subject is a journalist, inferentially with the intention of implying that as a mere journalist, rather than an eminent business consultant, he ought not to have dared to express opinions contrary to the prejudices of Wikipedia on the subject of “global warming”. I note that the subject’s entry began to be tampered with when he first publicly stated his disagreement with Wikipedia’s prejudice on this subject – a prejudice which your own previous comments on his entry demonstrate you fervently support. It appears to me that it is this particular prejudice on your part, and on that of Dabelstein-Petersen, that has led to your repeated and generally malevolent tampering with this entry. 2. In respect of the subject’s father, I added the words “late Major-General”, which appear to have been dropped in error at some stage in previous editing. It is a matter of record that the Second Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was a Major-General, and that he has died: see his Wikipedia page. Here and time and again elsewhere, your habit of wholesale deletion of carefully-considered amendments to make this entry accurate and complete is unacceptable, and must not be permitted in future. 3. In respect of the subject’s parents, his education, and his marriage, I had added some harmless details of the sort that customarily appear in such entries, such as his father’s decorations, some brief background on his mother and his wife, and some details of his educational qualifications, all of which are easily verifiable in Who’s Who. Yet your wholesale reversal of my edit wiped all of this detail out, without the slightest reason. 4. In respect of the subject’s early career, I had added some details of his work that are easily verifiable in Who’s Who and in other published sources. These, too, were arbitrarily deleted by your wholesale reversal of my edits. 5. I had corrected the false statement that the subject “has referred to himself as a Peer of the House of Lords”. The subject has never referred to himself as a “Peer of the House of Lords”, for there is no such thing. He is, whether you like it or not, a Peer of the Realm, having successfully proved his title to succeed his late father to the satisfaction of the Privileges Committee of the House of Lords, which will verify this fact if you bother to check. He is, therefore, a member of the House of Lords, but (in terms of the House of Lords Act 1999) without the right to sit or vote. I had corrected this error, adding that on two occasions the subject had unsuccessfully stood for election to vacant seats in the House of Lords. Even if you have a reference that states that the subject “has referred to himself as ‘a Peer of the House of Lords’”, that reference is inaccurate. 6. On the subject’s views about “global warming”, I shall begin with the general comment that there is far too much detail, most of it apparently intended to cast the subject’s views in the least favourable possible light regardless of the truth. The sheer quantity of detail on this matter unbalances the entry, and reflects the prejudices chiefly of you and Dabelstein-Petersen, together with those of the now-disbarred Connolley. The first of my edits in this section corrected the inaccurate statement that an article by the subject in the Sunday Telegraph of 5 November 2006 had “disputed whether global warming is manmade”. In fact, the article stated plainly that, as a result of human activities, some warming was to be expected. Your wholesale reversal of my edits restored the inaccuracy, in a manner calculated unreasonably to reflect discredit upon the subject. 7. I corrected the entry to state that the subject had acted as an expert witness in the London High Court case that found multiple serious errors in Al Gore’s movie. This is evident from the case papers, which include a substantial expert testimony from the subject. Your wholesale reversal of my edits deleted this correction, reverting to the previous formulation that he had merely “played a key role”. The subject drafted the 80-page scientific testimony that won the case. 8. I corrected an error in the entry to the effect that the subject had funded distribution of The Great Global Warming Swindle to schools in England. It is a matter of record that no such distribution was made, and that a journalist on The Independent had simply made this allegation up. Your wholesale reversal of my edits removed this necessary correction. 9. I corrected the entry to remove a point of view that runs counter to Wikipedia’s policy on points of view in what are supposed to be factual entries. The entry had said that the subject had recently undertaken a North American speaking tour to “campaign against” the UN climate conference in Copenhagen. Several of the subject’s speeches on the tour are available online, and it is clear from those speeches that he was not “campaigning against” the conference: instead, as I correctly stated in one of my edits, he was explaining the shortcomings of the UN’s climate science. 10. I removed several negative comments about the subject’s climate movie, and about his revelation that the draft Treaty of Copenhagen proposed to establish an unelected world “government” with control over the commanding heights of the world economy and over all markets worldwide. There were just as many positive comments – for instance, in Canada’s National Post, and a positive comment on Lord Monckton’s movie by Professor Larry Gould – but only the negative comments were included. At this point, either a balance of comments must be included, or no comments at all. For the sake of keeping the entry to a less disproportionate length, I had opted for the second course of action in respect of Lord Monckton’s speaking tour, and the first in respect of his movie. Your prejudiced reversal of all of my edits restored the manifestly unbalanced and unfair selection of critical comments only. On any view, this is unacceptable. 11. I had corrected the entry to reflect the fact that the subject’s contribution to the learned newsletter Physics and Society was a substantial, reviewed paper, not a mere “article”. Your reversal of my edits inconsistently left the word “paper” in one place, “article” in others. 12. I had corrected the entry to point out that the American Physical Society had been compelled to remove from above the online version of the paper the assertions – for which it had no evidence – that the Council of the APS disagreed with the paper, and that the world’s scientific community disagreed with it. It is a matter of record that the disclaimer was altered in this respect, after several Fellows of the APS had written to its President about the matter. Your reversals of my edits was calculated to have the effect of restoring these manifest inaccuracies, to the unreasonable detriment of the subject’s reputation. 13. I had corrected the entry to point out that the paper had been reviewed in detail by Professor Alvin Saperstein of Wayne State University. Since the Professor’s review comments have been published, this fact is undeniable. Yet the entry, after your restoration of numerous inaccuracies, now again states that the paper had not been reviewed. This is unacceptable. 14. I had removed a statement that one Smith, a paid employee of the American Physical Society, had identified “125 errors” in the subject’s paper. This statement contravenes the very policy that you dare to cite against me, that sources should be independent and verifiable. The list of “125 errors” appears on a campaigning website run by Smith himself: it was not reviewed: and it has not been independently verified. Indeed, several of Smith’s own supporters, on his website, have said that the vast majority of the “errors” are not errors at all. Here, you have allowed your malice and prejudice to cause you to overlook the rule that you have – albeit inappropriately – cited against me. This is unacceptable in a trusted editor of Wikipedia, and is one of the reasons why I am asking the arbiters to remove you from this role, particularly in respect of the subject’s entry. 15. On the subject’s published opinion – expressed during the early stages of the HIV epidemic – that the standard public-health measures against new, fatal, incurable infections should be followed, I had made several corrections. First, I had pointed out that the subject had expressed this view following a visit to the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases. What I could not say, for there is no published source, is that the chief HIV researcher at USAMRIID had begged the subject to publish, because they had been unable to persuade the Surgeon-General of the US to follow the standard protocol. I had also corrected the entry to reveal the UNAIDS figures on how many had died and how many had become infected since the subject’s article on the matter had been published. For the sake of balance, this material should have been left in, particularly since it was properly sourced. Yet your indiscriminate reversal of my edits deleted these changes, again in a manner calculated to do maximal but wholly unjustifiable damage to the subject’s reputation. This is unacceptable in a Wikipedia reviewer.

Standing the foregoing, I should be grateful if all of the corrections that I have mentioned at points 1-15 above were made to the subject’s entry, and if ChrisO and Dabelstein-Petersen were in future barred from tampering with this entry in any way. In my opinion, the arbiters should also consider whether either of these two is fit to be permitted to edit Wikipedia entries at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.85.112 (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Who's Who a reliable source? It is written by the subject and is unchecked by others. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation

Have you got a citation to support this.....Specifically Graves disease (Barbara Bush suffered from the same thing)... I notice it is not in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been mentioned unofficially and indirectly. I've been arguing (and so far succeeding) to keep it out of the article, since it's not documented in reliable sources, nor is it a significant issue in his public life as far as I know - I think it would be overstepping the line (i.e. a privacy violation) to allude to personal medical problems given that situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So thats a no. Then you cant use that as an excuse to insert the picture. Off2riorob (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I've never used it as a reason for including the picture. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It was mentioned at ANI although not by you. Looking round google and the net, this picture is the poorest reflection of him that I have seen, we do have a duty of care to living people not to negatively represent them. Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You may have missed the point that his condition is apparently a degenerative one. Older pictures will inevitably look different to very recent ones, simply because of this factor. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As you said there is not citation to support that he has this illness, is there? Off2riorob (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

He's said himself that he has it, but in e-mails and (I gather) a blog post, not in reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris, also your last edit summary of...if you can find a better image then please do so...is a totally wrong position as regards living people, you appear not to care about the fact that it is a poor representation of him, and you just insist on inserting it anyway, this is not the point..you can't say..well its him so what if it makes him look silly, we need to represent people in a neutral light, as in not making them look sillier than they actually are. Off2riorob (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "making him look silly", it's how he looks. Compare the image in this October 2009 National Post report. Was the National Post trying to "make him look silly?" (strange if it did, since it's sympathetic to his POV). -- ChrisO (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That picture is far preferable to the other one, anyway..the pushing has got the article protected for a week, so there is time to discuss and find n agreement. Off2riorob (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Would you provide a link to where you got this picture from please, I have searched for it and only found it on wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Nice work [5] closing that loophole. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Image:Daruma_dolls.jpg

Hi, I moved your picture Image:Daruma_dolls.jpg to commons and now they asking me for updating the license, as wikipedia does not accept Public Domain license anymore. Could you please help me with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkuczynski (talk • contribs) 12:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick FYI

I can't continue with this tonight and I may need to spread the rest over a couple of days for my input. Thank you for sorting and grouping out the sections as you have. I will review each and provide my input on each. Hopefully this will be sufficient to demonstrate due diligence to everyone's satisfaction in terms of C's request for rigor. --GoRight (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your helpful input. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Interview request

Hello, my name is Reeves Wiedeman, and I am with The New Yorker magazine. I am writing a story on Wikipedia, and specifically the often extensive debates on what to include in certain entries. One such debate I came across is one you took some part in: the debate over whether to include Neil Gaiman’s family’s history with Scientology in his entry.

I’m hoping to talk to you briefly about the Wikipedia editing process: etiquette, process, debate, and some of the things that go into developing the entries.

If you could, please contact me at [email protected] to let me know the best way to reach you. Thank you for your time, and I hope to speak with you soon.

Climategate name change

Hi, I see that you just marked a name change request as closed. However, the related link only shows recent name change requests. Even diff'ing the page shows no useful data. Can you please provide a link so I can see what the "voting" was? Q Science (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're looking for this one. --TS 23:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. From that reference, it appears that the article title was Climategate and that there was no consensus to change it. However, further research indicates that perhaps this is the better reference based on this notice. One of the problems is that both sections were about the exact same thing and edited at about the same time. Oh, and they do not agree on what the page name was at that time. Q Science (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the article name was only ever briefly "Climategate", just after it was created in November - I moved it to a more neutral title at that time and Tony moved it to a different title. At the time of the discussions you mentioned, the title was "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident". All that's happened since then is that "e-mail" has been dropped from the article title. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. By the way, the link you left is broken. I would fix it except that the article is under probation so I won't touch that edit again. Also, I think you should consider re-adding the other link to Archive_17. It is unfortunate that the exact same discussion was taking place in two separate sections at the same time, but, since they did, I think it is useful to link to them both. Q Science (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll sort it out. Thanks for the feedback. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change sanction log

Thank you for logging that. I initially did not since I did not invoke the probation in blocking GoRight (talk · contribs), but I can see where it might be useful to have the entry. I changed the link to my blocking rationale instead of the AN discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Specify?

Might I convince you to refactor your comment here? It would be best to take it as given that the other editor disagrees with your assessment of the sources, and proceed to post your own cogent analysis of their content and reliability. I have also asked ATren if they would be willing to refactor their own comment responding to yours. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, sort of. I'm not going to hand-hold Marknutley though - he's going to have to think for himself occasionally. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly satisfied with that rewording, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Amazon

The reviews of this cable are even better. Hours of fun. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman

With regard to your comment here, isn't the content in question already in the article? See Neil Gaiman#Early life. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it must have been added between when I checked at home, and when I added that note when I got to work. Sorry! cojoco (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Monckton image

Hi.

I noticed that you have tagged File:Christopher Monckton Kilt Mug crop.jpg as "possibly unfree". You may have overlooked the information on this image in the "permissions" field, which says:

Home page of the website, as well as the specific page on which the image appears, carries the label: "This work by CFACT is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License."

Since this is the case, I don't quite understand on what grounds the image might be considered to be "unfree" -- can you please explain? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the explanation at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley#Licensing Witch-Hunt. Unfortunately the original uploader has brushed off the copyright concerns with this image, which is very unwise of him. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that now -- it wasn't up when I posted. I've commented there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you were pointing me to the discussion at WP:PUF – it is that which cwasn't there when I first when to it, and it is there that I've commented, not at the discussion on the Monckton talk page. Sorry for the confusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I was in the process of adding the PUF rationale when you left your message. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Single Purpose Account?

I'm not sure what your problem is with me, perhaps your still on that sockpuppet thing. Whatever the case, I object to the bad faith implication you left dangling here. I'd appreciate it if you would please review my contibs and modify your remarks accordingly. Thanks JPatterson (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

File:ATSC ADE-651.jpg

Hmm how confident are you of non replaceability here?©Geni 17:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure. I've spent some time looking for free alternatives but there don't seem to be any. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Civility warning

Please don't make threats against good faith editors acting in accordance with policy. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt you're acting in good faith. I do doubt your good sense in acting the way you did. Please reconsider your approach. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please join me in trying to fix the article so it appropriately reflect the coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. I'm sure you're aware that the hacking has not been the focus of that coverage, and that the contents of the e-mails has been. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss your changes on the talk page first. You are throwing yourself headlong into a likely article probation action. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your reordering of the article doesn't make any sense. You've moved the most notable aspect, the controversy over the e-mails, out of the opening paragraphs. You've also messed up the chronology by noting the police investigation and personal threats before any indication of why the e-mails are notable or drew a strong reaction after being disclosed. Please think carefully before you make dramatic changes to the good faith efforts of experienced editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss your changes on the talk page first! It's not so hard to do, you know. As for "experienced Wikipedians", I've been around a damn sight longer than you have, so I know how to write an article, thank you very much. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good suggestion that you should remember. While the reasoning for my changes, supported by reliable sources and our editing guidelines, has been discussed on the talk page, your disruptive reversions are wholly without discussion. You haven't presented your reasoning (if there is any) for why the present title and your preferred ordering (that doesn't comport with the sources or our editing guidelines) should be reintroduced to the article. Please do so before engaging in any further disruptive reversions. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Go away and stop wasting my time, please. It's obvious why you have a block log as long as my arm. It will get longer if you don't change your behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a very civil response, Chris. You're likely to get yourself banned if you don't discuss matters with more civility.JettaMann (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure as its relevance but I saw yesterday that telling other editors to go away is in fact uncivil and worthy of a civility warning. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He should have said "please go away"? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, probably. :-) I'll try to phrase things as requests rather than imperatives... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted after I saw that you did include , please. So you weren't far off. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the talkpage stalking but you are wrong I was taken to WQA for telling someone to "Please go away" on a talkpage. My astonished response to this at WQA (rather than giving an imediate grovelling apology) ended up being one of the main things my RfA was opposed on. :~( Polargeo (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA is a worthless process full of idiots, so I wouldn't feel too bad about that. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:2001 match cut.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:2001 match cut.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User_talk:Isonomia#Buggered_up_deleteion. Thank you. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 15:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your fast response. I remembered seeing about this in ANI (just didn't know who was involved), sorry I didn't go back and look. I have scratched the warning above. Please do include ANI links when it is involved, especially when there is a helpme tag on the talk page. Your response to the user was well intended, but I think it carried a little too much punch. This could just be my opinion, but just letting you know. Hope we can be at a resolve here. Have a nice day. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 15:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Your clear abuse of rules

ChrisO, I have raised a perfectly justified request to delete an article about an event that now appears not to have taken place. Your action is a clear abuse of procedure. I have requested that this article be deleted because:

1. There is no evidence such an event took place
2. Even is such an event took place, the content of that article would be highly prejudicial to the individual who hacked the data.

Please could you stop abusing the rules and help me raise the appropriate request for deletion in line with wikipedia policy! Isonomia (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy #Reasons for deleting. I advise you very strongly against pursuing this, since it is a blatant abuse of AfD. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:ADE-651 demonstration.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:ADE-651 demonstration.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:ATSC ADE-651.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:ATSC ADE-651.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:GT200 philippines.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:GT200 philippines.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Paul_012 ^(talk) 07:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied to your comment at my talk page. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Get off your arse and do something about this ;) : David_Lewis_Anderson. Hugs - Nothughthomas (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nominations.

Hi. I noticed you copied the DYK nomination for GT200 from Lawrence Graff, but didn't replace all parameters. To ensure proper credit is given to DYK nominations, please copy the empty syntax for {{NewDYKnom}} from the top of the suggestions page instead of copying from another entry. Thanks. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, slacker! Pffft -- Kendrick7^talk 05:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please don't call other people moronic as you did here ("moronic editing from Macai"). Next time I will raise it on Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement. Nsaa (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit unfair calling Rush Limbaugh moronic, though his statements may seem a bit silly. Your edit summary describing the action as moronic wasn't actually calling the editor moronic, but isn't as polite as is very desirable on these pages. Must agree that changing "feminist" to "feminazi" without a source making that claim about the article subject does look like vandalism, but arguably it's a "viewpoint" which was rightly reverted as lacking a source. . . dave souza, talk 12:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the revert of the "feminazi" stuff, since it is WP:OR as long as it's unsourced by a secondary source. I was referring what ChrisO (talk · contribs) calls both Macai (talk · contribs) in the edit summary and the living person Rush Limbaugh in the text "moronic" [6] (a WP:BLP issue?) and I think this is extremely counterproductive for the cooperative environment at Wikipedia. Macai's edit can in no way be defined as WP:VAND (I know this quite well after doing many thousands WP:VAND reverts by the tool Wikipedia:Huggle ... )Nsaa (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit borderline, adding plausible-sounding hoaxes comes under Sneaky vandalism but as you agree, it's more clearly OR. As it happens, it was rightly reverted with a templated warning as an unconstructive test edit. ChrisO, the point you were trying to make would not have been lost in this tussle over etiquette if you'd avoided "moronic", preferably describing the edit without opining on how silly it was. A lesson for the future. . . dave souza, talk 17:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, I don't think your use of the word "moronic" is helpful in this matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

But calling other editors bullshit is OK? Seems a rather curious double standard... or perhaps not very curious at all, just a simple double standard William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

First, please don't misrepresent what I said. I was referring to your nonsensical argument, not you as a person. Second, yes, "moron" is worse that "BS", IMO. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not call him a moron. I said he had done something moronic. I stand by that statement. What he did was not a hoax, OR or an "unconstructive test edit"; it was deliberate, premeditated extremist vandalism. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you didn't. I'm sorry if my comment wasn't clear. Two issues are being conflated. WMC keeps spinning my comment to make it look like I was referring to the editor, and not the content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is, ChrisO used an ad hominem attack in place of an argument. He suggested that I should be ignored based on past edits made. This is a logical fallacy and demonstrates that the way he responds to a lost argument is by mudslinging. Keep in mind that this is the guy who wants me topic banned. It's just horribly ironic. Macai (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm thinking now that you ought to be indefinitely blocked. Others are clearly of the same opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Places in Rotherhithe

Hi, thanks for the work you did on articles about various locations in Rotherhithe (back in 2004). However please would you add inline citations for these? Otherwise the information in these articles isn't verifiable. I'd especially be interested in knowing the sources for Howland Great Wet Dock. --Robkam (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Kosovo edit

Hi Chris,

I'm curious to know, concerning this edit, why you thought that the information from the CIA World Factbook should be given twice in the same paragraph, in two sentences right next to each other? You added:

"CIA World Factbook estimates the following ratio: 88% Albanians,... [...] According to latest CIA The World Factbook estimated data,[...] it stated that ethnic composition is 88% Albanians,..."

Thanks,

--Cinéma C 18:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Careful there

Don't take the bait ("stubborn"). Keep your cool. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU Email Naming

RE: [7].

In the interests of working together amicably and trying to build some bridges of cooperation I thought I would contact you on your talk page. If I am not welcome here please just let me know.

I have no intention of touching the CRU talk page or the enforcement discussion you started but I wanted to provide some input for your consideration. I note that in all of the other X-gates you listed that they were all redirects to articles which were named after some controversy. If we were to adopt that same convention in the CRU context that would suggest a name like "Climate Research Unit email controversy". Has this particular name been tried already and rejected, and even so could you accept this as a reasonable compromise based on the conventions you have already pointed out? I don't think I carry very much weight in these things but if this would be acceptable to you and some of the other regulars on that page who object to Climategate I would be willing to work with you on the user's talk pages to try and get those clamoring for Climategate to finally buy into this as a name and make it stick.

Thoughts?

--GoRight (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking along the same lines

• Climatic Research CenterUnit Stolen Email Controversy
• Climatic Research CenterUnit Stolen Data Controversy

These don't flow as well but might attract a few more !votes. JPatterson (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't much like the latter two suggestions, but I think GoRight's idea has some merit. Let me do some digging in the archives to see if it's been proposed before. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I prefer his as well. Do note that the CRU's official name is how I have it. JPatterson (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Errm... no, it's the "Climatic Research Unit" (not "Center", or even "Centre"). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, must be nap time JPatterson (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that some might like to get the stolen into the title but even that is controversial right now, no? And others will object that it is about more than just the emails but that's the primary thing it is known for. I favor my suggestion as a compromise position because it seems fairly neutral and has the benefit of following an already established convention. Controversy doesn't point fingers in either direction, right? If we can get a block of the key editors from both sides to buy in and have them stand united I think you can get the name to stick. Anyway, it's just a thought. --GoRight (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think most could live with stolen as the word applies even if it was an inside job. I like your suggestion because it is more concise and less awkward. I think those who see the hacking/purloining aspect as central to the the controversy might not see it as neutral although I have argued before (unsuccessfully) that "email controversy" works whether you see the controversy as the content or the unauthorized release. Welcome back BTW. Glad that bit of unpleasantness is behind you.JPatterson (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the "heads up" on the article probation

Thank you for making me aware of the probation (after reading the redirect deletion discussion on Warmergate, I had added the name and bolded "Climategate" as I had noticed repeated mentions in reliable sources of the two terms). As the additions were reverted in a matter of minutes I do not intend to touch the redirect's target in the foreseeable future. Since this is my first encounter with an article in probation, I am curious: should there be a notification to the appropriate people that redirects to the article in question are being discussed at WP:RfD? B.Wind (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Times article on Phil Jones

The edit was reverted and comments made encouraging those who made the changes to discuss them first. Your comments were inflammatory and didn't contribute anything to the discussion. I'd prefer that you hadn't made them. Thepm (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. I'm referring to the reader comments on the Times article itself. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. Still not really relevant to the article I guess, but I'm pleased that it wasn't directed at an editor. cheers. Thepm (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Request

Would you (should you have time) look over an article i have been working on in my user space? [8] I am looking for feedback to ensure i have followed the wp:npov and wp:weight rules to prevent to much arguing when it goes into main space :) Thanks --mark nutley (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Wild turkeys.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Wild turkeys.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW

I think your efforts to "reach across the aisle" and engage an opposing editor (recently unblocked, no less) to negotiate a contentious issue are commendable. ATren (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have pinged the obvious individuals we had already discussed on my talk page. I'll monitor the current RFC and also ping likely supporters from there in an effort to build a critical mass of editors for the proposal. Then we can try to bring anyone who is left on board as well. For now let's just wait and see what our smallish list of people do. --GoRight (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Leaving pointless warnings

Connolley claimed I was spamming a message. I wasn't. I called what he said "bullshit." That's not uncivil, it's just true. I trust you left him a warning for being untruthful about my actions as well? No? Shocking. As for your threat to request sanctions against me, good luck with that. Scottaka UnitAnode 15:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for GT200

On February 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article GT200, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

An interesting article on a highly useful device... only if all the claims were true. Yes, sounds very much like a dowser. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

The discussions at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement are not meant to be general fora for discussion of other issues. Narrowly targeted productive comment at any thread is welcome, but please confine your comments to the substance of the request and closely related issues. For instance, if a request is made detailing edit warring by one party, it could be appropriate to provide context in the form of links to talkpage discussion or diffs of other parties engaged in the same edit war. It would not be appropriate, however, to bring unrelated issues to an already open request, discuss content issues, or engage in incivility or personal attacks. If someone else makes that you feel merits a reply but your reply would not itself be closely related to the original request, please raise make your reply at usertalk, open a new enforcement request, or start a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Thank you for your cooperation. A few diffs of posts that venture partially or wholly off topic, or would be better suited to other venues: [9], [10]. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Productive?

Could you please refrain from comments like this in future? It is not really helpful in moving that discussion forward. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Green_helmet_003.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Green_helmet_003.jpeg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Pallywood

I disagree. Pallywood is a high priority for Wikipedia Israel. Israel's image in the world is shaped by this kind of propaganda. An article about it is crucial for understanding the dynamics of the conflict.--Gilabrand (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested ...

in this RSN discussion, as you commented in the past on one of the sources. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, I commend you for attempting to seek common ground on this renaming issue, but as you can see even reasonable compromises are resisted by the hard-line pro-AGW faction. This is why I almost exclusively support the "skeptics" even though my sympathies would naturally lie with the pro-AGW side: because there is never recognition of anything but their own strong POV, and there is never compromise even when neutral uninvolveds oppose them. Rather than seek compromise which would make the article more balanced, they bunker down and resist even the smallest change to the status quo. And eventually, partisans like GoRight are blocked by sympathetic admins, people like me are hounded off, and the status quo remains. If you would like to know why I consistently line up against this block of editors, this endless rename debate is a perfect illustration -- it's a microcosm of the entire GW topic.

In this case, clearly the "hacking incident" label is wrong, and it's an embarrassment to the encyclopedia that it continues to be represented as such. The skeptic hardliners' "Climategate" was probably wrong too (though for different reasons) and I can see the objection to that. But calling it a "controversy" is right on target and it doesn't exclude either the hacking or the content debate -- yet the hardline AGW faction still blocks it. This is the problem. It's not scibaby, it's not harassment, it's the refusal of the hardline pro-AGW editors to cede one inch in the interest of NPOV. ATren (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

GT200

Nice new article :-) – but, that said, can I ask, being the nasty deletionist image admin that I am, do we really need a non-free photo for it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's justifiable, given that it's a promotional photograph from the manufacturer's online brochure. Otherwise we really have no illustration of either the device or its mode of usage. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, but the question is, why would it be impossible to create a free one? Given the fact that hundreds of these units are in use in public places all over the world, and there's public debate over them, with various agencies testing them and discussing them in public, wouldn't it be likely that some opportunity for a photo would arise? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:GT200 philippines.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:GT200 philippines.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Adambro (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Page : "Lorne White"

Hi There

I had started creating a page regarding my deceased friend Lorne White that you quickly deteled as being non-notable. Please confirm if this is in fact the case and if so what it is you think the contents should reflect in order to have it remain.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.208.172 (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting posts

Are you allowed to delete other editor's posts on the basis that they might be a sockpoppet?[11] You're not an admin as far as I know. Aren't you supposed to report the editor or have the admins do a check user first? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already put in a checkuser request. Scibaby is fairly obvious. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Quadro Tracker

On February 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Quadro Tracker, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Rfc - Blood Libel / Israel's Brutality

Hey dude. Did you comment here? I only mention it b/c most others who've been involved with this article have commented, and I failed to send you an Rfc request earlier (as I had for most other involved editors). NickCT (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons Picutres

Hello Chris,

you may have noticed that a couple of your pictures have been nominated for AfD on Commons, see here. Mostly those out of GDR government sources. I'm currently working on the Victims of the Berlin Wall-Article in German WP and would like to use some of those pictures. Therefore I'm interested that they are not deleted. Could you participate in the AfD on Commons?

Thank you for your time, --Blunt. (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Query

Hi, ChrisO; since you have some experience in editing articles that attract POV, would you be able to add to [this discussion? SandyGeorgien (Talk) 21:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS E13

On March 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS E13, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 06:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

re Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

I would "officially" request that the ongoing Request not be referred to on either of the AfD's mentioned. I would prefer that the RfE does not become a venue for arguing the merits of the specific processes. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely, and I've not done so for that very reason. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

here is a violation of WP:BLP. May I please suggest you to give it another thought before making such irresponsible comments?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. Now please go away. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth (film)

• Battlefield Earth (film)

The film won the Razzie Award for Worst Film of the Decade. I updated the article accordingly. Just thought you'd like to know, as you helped get the article to WP:FA quality status. :P Hope you are doing well. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification of enforcement request

As a result of your violation of WP:CIVIL, for your many repeated frivolous complaints against me, I have filed an enforcement request against you concerning violations of the climate change article probation regime. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#ChrisO. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

ChrisO, Gibraltar has gone to ArbCom and it looks like it will be accepted. You have been involved in the past so I am letting you know in case you have any input. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sea org.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sea org.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nahum Shahaf

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nahum Shahaf, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahum Shahaf. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ← George ^talk 09:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Looming edit war

Please would you rule on [12]. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly not something that should be in the article; I've taken it out. Thanks for bringing it my my attention. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

CCE Request closed

Hello ChrisO, I have closed a Climate Change enforcement request filed by yourself with a general warning to all editors, as noted in the linked page. Franamax (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jamal al durrah.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jamal al durrah.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note

Concerning the article Climate change denial, Mackan79 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has opened an enforcement case against me at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. As someone involved with the page, I thought you should be informed. ► RATEL ◄ 06:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wanka shirt.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Wanka shirt.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nahum Shahaf

Just to let you know that I've responded to your comment at the BLP noticeboard. Briefly, I think you're right in your concerns about the article, but I'm not sure it is a BLP issue so much as content one, as Jaakobou appears to want to portray Shahaf in a more positive way. Whilst this is still problematic, the normal concerns addressed by the BLP noticeboard are of derogatory information which on the face of it this doesn't appear to be. I can only suggest such tedious things as RfCs or resorting to WP:AE if they carry on reverting and putting in unsourced info. Quantpole (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Battlefield earth screencap.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Battlefield earth screencap.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ÷seresin 01:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation

Hi Chris, you just violated the 1RR restriction on our Climategate article.[13][14] Can you please self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I updated the introduction - not a revert - and reverted your reversion of my edits. We're currently on one reversion each. I'll post some comments to the talk page shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a clear definition of "revert", but you removed the phrase "about whether these e-mails indicated misconduct on the part of climate scientists" twice in 24 hours. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Read my talk page comments. Your addition, which was slipped in without discussion, is literally incoherent. It makes no sense at all. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make any additions. The "misconduct" phrase has been there for some time. Like I said on the article talk page, if there's an error in grammar, then fix the grammar. Don't use a grammatical error to remove long-standing content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

E-mail Contraversy

See my comment. The primary objection with your edit was simply that removed any mention of the actual allegations. Avoid that, and I'll support your edit. NickCT (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

preemptive request

see here. nableezy - 18:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Pay closer attention, I was just notifying you. My use of "preemptive" was a characterization of Jaak's filing the request after you wrote you would file one on him if he continued with the same actions. Replace "Nableezy" with "Jaakobou" in your response please. nableezy - 22:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, my bad. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

All good, thanks. And though we may not have become acquainted I've been a "fan" for some time. Peace, nableezy - 22:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

What does Nableezy have to do with this? ← George ^talk 22:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you mis-interpreted Nableezy's notice to you above as him being the one who filed the complaint? ← George ^talk 22:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, you're quite right - I don't know how I missed that. Fixed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

History of Gibraltar

All the edit warring has left that article a nonsensicle mess (Well. More of one than it was before). I was wondering how your reworking was going? --Narson ~ Talk • 00:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Science

I rest my case. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

re Battlefield Earth screenwriter apologises

Check recent diffs of the article history - it was already added in, in some fashion. You may wish to copyedit or expand it, as appropriate? -- Cirt (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ridgeway Hill Viking burial pit

On March 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ridgeway Hill Viking burial pit, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Split infitives

Bah. There's nothing wrong with split infinitives. Evercat (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad form, you know - at least if you follow Oxford English rather than Edinburgh English. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Lies! "Most modern English usage guides have dropped the objection to the split infinitive", at least according to something I read on a dark corner of the web. Evercat (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, if it's on the web it must be true... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring my comments...

Same here as at AQFK. Please dont. Certainly not silently and suggesting I've written things I never wrote. If you feel the need, use strikeout and leave a signature. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Kontakt

Would you mind emailing me? xenuphobes @gmail.com . I'd rather not explain why here. You understand. Thanks. :) Max champion (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

1RR

this edit, this edit and these edits bring you up to 3RR. Please self-revert.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I'm substantially revising parts of the article at the moment, so don't wave RRs at me. Wait till I'm done (which will be shortly), then we can discuss these (necessary) changes. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

CRU

My apologies for the (partial) revert of one of your changes. I wasn't disputing the meaning, just what I felt was an overly prolix and verbose expression of it.

Regards. FellGleaming (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I think your wording is better - thanks. You seem to have lost the bit I added about the Royal Society's involvement, so I've restored that (since you don't mention any objections to it) - hope that's OK. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they found any impropriety, did they?

Yes, actually, they did make some minor findings of impropriety, finding that the CRU had misplaced and lost data, was disorganized, not as responsive as they should have been to information requests, and should have worked with statisticians to help compile and validate their findings. I assume you are involved in a professional career and know that findings like this of your work, while not of major significance, would be embarrassing and far short of "vindication." It's safe to say, however, that no major improprieties were found. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Aren't those matters of working practices rather than wrongdoing, though? Talking about them as "improprieties" seems an overstatement. It's like saying that it's an "impropriety" for me to have a messy desk (to which I regret to say I'd have to plead guilty) rather than poor working practice. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is extremely fair and neutral. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, happy to find a solution we can all agree on. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Kategorien

You are invited to join the discussion here. Tadija^speaks 17:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) --Tadija^speaks 17:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Rifkind

If you have time, you might like to review a content dispute at this BLP. Kittybrewster ☎ 03:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom of the talk page! Kittybrewster ☎ 08:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Found it! :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Please read the latest comments on the Rifkind page. --SteamedTreacle (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please self revert

Please self revert to this version. Discuss each paragraph you want out. You have removed several sources that is clearly WP:RS. If you don't self revert i will take it to the probation area. Nsaa (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read my commentary at the foot of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Hill (blog). The answer's no, by the way. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You broke it [15] please self revert mark nutley (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Please take your tiresome behaviour elsewhere. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you are correct, one was fixing a ref, you are however editwarring mark nutley (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And you're puffing the non-notable claims of a non-notable individual on a non-notable blog. Here's a hint: if you want to write an article about a blog, write about the blog, rather than padding out the article with tangential fluff. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

DeSmogBlog

[16] Chris, that content was arrived at throught collaboration by a number of different editors, and it was reviewed and approved by an independent Good Article editor. Please don't unilaterally blank content, especially in this situation. I was hoping that this article would stand as proof that collaboration between the different "sides" in AGW is possible. Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, you removed reliable sources from the Bishop Hill article. That is not coatracking. Each of those sources specifically mentions the blog and I worded the text to not say anything but what was said for the blog. You voted to "redirect" in effect, delete the article in the AfD. Do you think you should be removing sources from an article that you want deleted? Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's correct to do so. As another user has said on the talk page, puffing up the article with passing mentions of the blog gives it a false impression of its notability. Let me remind you of what WP:WEB requires: that "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." A passing mention does not equate being the subject of a work, nor is it non-trivial. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What about DeSmogBlog. The fact that about 10 editors on "both sides" and a GA reviewer approved of the content means nothing to you? You're right and all of us are wrong? Cla68 (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically yes. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to blank it again? To blank an entire article section that has clear consensus from its participants and a article quality reviewer I think qualifies as vandalism. So, if you say yes, I'll need to take some preemptive action to protect the 'pedia. Please answer. Cla68 (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking solely on the style issues, Cla68 I'd say you should be axing that section and working whatever is useful into the rest of the article. Otherwise it's mostly a link-farm. But then. I'm not a GA reviewer... Franamax (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I really tried to do everything right with DeSmogBlog. I sought compromise on the talk page, I paused often in building the article to ask for input, and worked through a content dispute (on a different issue) that erupted during the GA review. I was happy that the resulting article appeared to show that the AGW editors from different "sides" could work together to produce a quality article. I apparently wasn't the only one happy with the result. But for someone to come along and unilaterally blank half the article, for apparently the sole purpose of trying to win a content dispute in another article, is very dispiriting and disappointing. The fact that it was done by such a long time editor as ChrisO, who should know by now how to respect consensus and the article quality review processes that have become established in Wikipedia by long-time community input, is especially disheartening. What can we do about things like this? Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Some people think it's more important to write good articles than Good Articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Cla, I think of you as a pretty darn good writer and I appreciate the effort you've made to bring together "opposing" sides in a collaboration. I'm not convinced you're fully on the "neutral" side, though that's of no import here. You've done laudable work by trying to get an article to GA status - but that doesn't mean I can't think that parts of the article suck. I'm sure you would be among the first to agree that "audited content" can always be improved. It's unfortunate that ChrisO didn't start a talk thread (that I can find) to explain the removal, but in this case I support it for reasons wholly unrelated to CC or AGW or whatever it is today - we just don't put "Why this subject is so navel-gazingly important!!!" stuff together in it's own section. You probably don't want to hear my extended views on WP quality-review processes. :) I do acknowledge that you've made an effort to reach across the somewhat artificial boundaries in this topic, but I do disagree with your presumed result. It's just a plain 'ol lame section, you should go get consensus to fix it up (i.e. disperse the contents). You are one of a few editors I think could actually do that. Franamax (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. I have a lot of experience cobbling together articles from disparate sources, many of which offer only bits and pieces of information. I can give you other examples if you like, some of which are in FA articles. The only time I've seen this come up is when there is a content dispute, which, as you know, is usually a result of opposing POVs. No one objected to that section in the article while I and several others, from different "sides", were building it. ChrisO blanked the section for one reason, to try to win a content dispute in another article. ChrisO and another editor, in my opinion, are trying to remove sourcing from that other article during its AfD so that it will look less notable so that other editors will vote to delete/redirect it as ChrisO wants. This kind of battleground mentality is unacceptable. The fact that ChrisO would blank the entire section from an article which just passed GA review, and the "new and improved" GA review I might add, because the GA standards have improved greatly in recent times, reflects much more poorly on him than on the state of Wikipedia's article building and assessing processes. We're supposed to be collaborating, cooperating, and compromising, not doing whatever it takes to win one "for our side." Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Aren't we supposed to comment on the content, not on the contributor? Your aspersions of ChrisO's motives aren't in that spirit. I note that you recently (and properly, in my view) took another editor to task for casting aspersions on the motives of others;[17] you might consider modeling the behaviour that you want to encourage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Different venues SBHB, article talk page discussions should focus on content. User talk pages are one of the places where we try to clear up personal disagreements with each other. First step in the user dispute resolution process, remember? I definitely have a personal disagreement with ChrisO, if I haven't made that clear already. As far as the content goes, I wasn't going to vote to keep Bishop Hill at first because looking at the article I didn't think it was notable enough. But, when I looked at the text that was removed and checked the removed links from reliable sources, I realized that the blog was notable and also realized why a couple of editors were trying to remove content from the article. Notice in the AfD discussion that one editor has changed his/her vote after I pointed out that editors were trying to hide the sources and a couple more editors have voted to keep based on the sources that I found that had been removed. So, I guess I'm not the only one to have concerns with the way ChrisO is behaving. Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the point about venue. So it's OK to cast aspersions on people's motivation when in user talk space? This is not a rhetorical or pointed question; I've seen it argued both ways on the climate change enforcement pages. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(this part e/c'd in response to Cla 00:58 and SBHB 01:09) Hehe, SBHB makes an apropos comment here. I was just about to summarize my comments here as an accusation of intellectual laziness on the part of Cla68 and the others who consensually built and certified this GA. The existence of the standalone section is inexplicable to me. Not the content, some of which (especially the first bit) can be properly incorporated elsewhere, but the grouping - which I can see ends up as a judgement against the writers closely involved with the actual writing effort - which comes back to whether the content best serves the purpose of attaining audited status or the purpose of expressing properly balanced truthiness. In the final balance, I'm saying the writers and reviewers screwed up and ChrisO's removal (any portion of which can be re-inserted in differnt form, remember?) with the edit summary mentioning how the removed content tells us nothing substantive about the article subject - is a valid viewpoint, regardless of whatever POV war it is part of. Deal with it. Or could I retitle the aection as "In popular culture"? (Which used to be called "Trivia") Franamax (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(more up to date) Yes SBHB, suggestions of malign intent are a little more acceptable on user talk pages when they are made with the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. In this case for sure, where ChrisO isn't even present in the discussion and is not accused of particularly egregious actions (there's a suggestion of retaliatory action but I consider it made in GF and discount it). If anything goes awry here I'll take the liberty of hatting it and ChrisO can just nuke the whole thing when he gets back. No foul sez' I. Franamax (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you've all been having fun while I was away... I'll post something to Talk:DeSmogBlog in a bit, but the bottom line is that the section I removed is just a quotefarm that tells us nothing about the blog itself. It's the same problem that affected Bishop Hill (blog). Now, obviously, I'm not going to treat pro-science and anti-science blogs differently - they both need to be treated the same way, i.e. in accordance with Wikipedia policy, which discourages quote farms and trivia sections. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Goose pulling

Great article! I'm sure that you'll get tons of hits on this, especially if my request is approved for this to be the lead article. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice picture; I understand the idea much better. I'd been under the impression that the goose would somehow be caused to stay in one place on the ground. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Article move discussion

Regarding a recent article move you did, you are invited to participate in a discussion about it at Talk:Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act#Article title and move. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied there. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your post on the Bishop Hill Talk Page.

This post was highly inappropriate. I've mentioned it here. Thepm (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris, as you know, it's important to discuss edits, not the editor. Thepm makes good points at the enforcement talk page. There have been several requests for enforcement of the CC sanctions against Mark, and that's a better place to discuss tendentious editing. While it can be appropriate to mention such behaviour in outline on an article talk page, the focus should be on the article and not on the editors. Trust you'll take more care in future, dave souza, talk 06:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 24 hours

I am dismayed to have been advised that you had redirected Bishop Hill (blog) after I had recently lifted the protection on the article, without apparent discussion or new consensus. In earlier protecting the article, I specifically noted - in my comments on the article talkpage - that deleting or merging (and therefore redirecting) would require a consensus at a fresh AfD. I was also very clear that protection would be lifted when editors started discussing issues and gaining consensus at the talkpage, rather than having a slow edit war via edit summaries, and did so upon request when it looked as if discussions had resumed. I will watch this page, and will action any request to have my block reviewed at whatever appropriate venue is desired and - since I am on my lunchbreak and will not be available again until this evening - am happy for anyone else to start such proceedings (and to unblock, under condition that the article will not be redirected in the meantime). I am really sorry and disappointed that I have had to action this block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(as Wordsmith offered dave souza) If you agree to a voluntary restriction of 0RR on that article, I am willing to unblock. Fill out a standard unblock request and I will take care of it. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In any event, not being able to edit a web site for 24 hours isn't the most severe punishment the world has ever known. Whichever way you decide please be sure to keep your cool. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ChrisO~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I will agree to a 0RR restriction if it is generally applied to all editors of that article. If you're proposing that it should be applied only to me, don't bother, and I won't consider myself bound by 0RR. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This unblock request does not address the reason for your block nor does it give a reason why you should be unblocked. Please do not use the unblock request template just to conduct discussions about he conditions under which you would like to be unblocked. Moreover I agree with Ultraexactzz below.  Sandstein  21:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

FYI, see me and Cla. Perhaps less of an issue for me, so it's your call. All the best, dave souza, talk 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This block is about your conduct, and your unblock request should refer only to your conduct. The offer from Lar refers only to you, and should be interpreted that way. The same 0RR restriction was offered to Dave Souza and Cla68; Dave Souza agreed to the restriction, and was promptly unblocked, while Cla68 has yet to respond to the block or the offer. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case, thanks but no thanks. A selective 0RR is not an effective approach. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A middle way might be to request an article wide 0RR restriction at the Probation enforcement page once unblocked - plus, I would recuse from participating in any such request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Or once the block expires. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Which I intend to do, once the block expires. But I will not agree to a so-called "voluntary" 0RR of indefinite duration that applies only to myself and apparently a couple of others. It should be general or not at all. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Your addition

Please discuss you additions on the talkpage, the article is under a lot of discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Rekers

You are warring content that is being discussed on the talkpage. Please stop. Off2riorob (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone else added the key bit. I've added the pseudonym and denial of the luggage-carrying claim, as discussed on the talk page, minus the elements which you thought most objectionable. I don't think your objection to the remainder has any merit, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement request

Here. Cla68 (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)