Misplaced Pages

Thought you might be interested

See here. Cheers. IronDuke 00:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lothair Crystal

Barnstar

David Ruffley

Please would you add this to your BLP watchlist. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No Scibaby Sock

I recently made a suggestion for a relatively minor edit on the Global Warming discussion page. As near as I can tell, you immediately declared that I was a sock puppet for a user named Scibaby.

I haven't the slightest idea of who that person is. In addition, I was not trying to be controversial in my suggestion. I suppose that's my fault for wading into that particular pool (i.e., Global Warming), but I was honestly attempting to improve the page. I can assure you it won't happen again.

In the meantime, if you would be so kind as to explain how I can get myself off of the blacklist so that I can at least return to more innocuous activities such as word-smithing from time to time, I would appreciate it.

Thanks in advance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missionamp (talk • contribs) 17:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It was me . If you're not a sock, feel free to re-write your user page William M. Connolley (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

barnstar

Hello

Hello Chris, I noticed your fine work at the Gaza flotilla picture. You edited it in a very professional way. Now there is this other image: concerning the after 1967 borders it says: "Israeli territory after the Six Day War".. do you think you can remove the pov? something more neutral, for example change it to "Held by Israel after the Six Day War" ? I would do it myself but don't know how to use photoshop. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'll take a look at it. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Great job! --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Btw, what software are you using for image editing? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Inkscape. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder

Chris, I am new to Misplaced Pages disputes. But please get mediation / editorial review rather than deleting my edit (and other people's, s.a. User:Wragge) containing two sentences of well-sourced, relevant information over and over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias Blume (talk • contribs) 08:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already asked for outside views. Let's see what other people say. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Matthias Blume (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Chance Program

• Second Chance Program

Wow. Gulp, and here I was, in the process of drafting up a very similar article with about 50 sources or so, and was about ready to save it live in a couple days. Oh well, I guess I shall try to incorporate my secondary-source-research, into yours. :P -- Cirt (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! Feel free to amend the article as needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, there is enough significant coverage and discussion in secondary sources, such that the Second Chance Program proposal in Nevada and later ramifications and subsequent impact on 2010 election analysis, campaign advertising, etc, could be its own separate article..... -- Cirt (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you draft something up focusing on the Nevada issue? I had a look at it but I didn't think there was enough to spin out into a separate article. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've also submitted the new article to Template talk:Did you know - hopefully we can get a DYK out of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I copyedited it a bit, I think it is a bit shorter in total characters now? -- Cirt (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Good job - it's shorter by 4 chars so I've updated that figure. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Tad bit more trimmed. -- Cirt (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Will this be a GA, after DYK? :P -- Cirt (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't see why not, let's see what reaction it gets. I mentioned it on WWP and Ex-Scn to ask for some feedback and/or corrections. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, interesting, good luck. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting

Glad to see Goldstone has stabilised. Good luck with the GA nom. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks HJ. The GA nom is just to get some outside views of the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

I see that you struck out this comment explaining that it's a "Probable sockpuppet of banned User:GoRight". I'm unfamiliar with the sockpuppet investigations so I don't know how this is supposed to work, but when I go to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight, I don't see where this decision has been reached. I see people talking about the possibility and recommendation to do a CU, but no final determination. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Chance Program - good work!

I have been thinking for a while of writing an article about this, but probably wouldn't have got around to it. You've not only done an article, but a far better one than I would have done. Bravo! I still hope to improve Purification rundown and Downtown Medical and I'll consult your article for relevant links. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Re, if you think someone is wikistalking you the worst thing to do is ask them to stop. It only confirms to them that they're getting to you, which is their goal. (No comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the wikistalking contention.) Really, in almost all cases the best way to respond to perceived provocations and gamesmanship is to ignore it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually on this occasion my impression was incorrect, so I reverted myself. This wasn't a case of wikistalking. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Carry on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Second Chance Program

Congratulations! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

Hi, Chris, I have a bone to pick with you wrt AGF. Here you misquoted a report, which may have been an honest error on your part, but compounded with the time you twisted my words all out of meaning, I have reason not to assume good faith on your part when you quote others. While recognizing your abundant and valuable contributions, I am unable to take your quotes at face value.
I would like to collaborate collegially and fruitfully with you, and so am asking if you will retract and apologize for these two blunders. (Well, for the first one--you did apologize for the second, but I'd still like your personal assurance that it was an honest mistake and that you didn't back down just because you were caught.) The first was not only either a deliberate distortion or an inexcusably sloppy error, but a personal attack, and your failure to rectify your mistake led me to believe you didn't care to.

What must be accepted is that this is an encyclopedia, not a legal document or technical journal, and some readers will interpret words to mean one thing and others another. Yopienso (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to take you seriously when you claim, as you do on the article incubator talk page, that you are working to try to gain "ascendancy over ideologues who want to spin it to the left." -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris, please don't cherry-pick quotes to misconstrue my comments. The comment in full reads:

Please publish post haste! This, and Jimbo Wales' comments re. Climategate, renew my hope in the possibility that Misplaced Pages's stated principle of neutrality may regain the ascendancy over ideologues who want to spin it to the left. (Just please don't anyone accuse me of wanting to spin it to the right--I don't. Conservapedia exists for that purpose. It's dismaying when WP veers almost as sharply to the left as they do to the right--let's work together here for neutrality and verifiability.)

I take you very seriously as a threat to Misplaced Pages's neutrality and accuracy.

I'm very sorry I forgot to sign this! (The sig from March looked big.) I'm hoping for a good working relationship together in the future. Regards, --Yopienso (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Still hoping to hear from you. --Yopienso (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Am I to understand you do not wish to rectify your error? or to work with me? --Yopienso (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in replying - I had intended to reply earlier but have had to deal with a family emergency (I'm just back from the hospital). The short answer is that your comments were rather clearly expressions of a battlefield mentality - i.e. that you think "left-wing ideologues" (who?) are responsible for the current name of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. As I recall, the discussion about the article name was not about "left" or "right" but NPOV, which is of course not a left-right issue. Your framing of the issue as a left-right one is mistaken and, frankly, unhelpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem about the delay; I hope your loved ones are well.

Here's the diff. You have inserted the word "left-wing." If you found "ideologues who want to spin it to the left" an offensive term, I apologize for offending you. I can't see how that, or anything, would justify misrepresenting me. (Do note that the POV on this issue has quite a lot to do with right- and left-wing politics. Unless I'm mistaken, most alarmists are left and most deniers right.)

So, do you wish to rectify your error? Do you wish to work with me as a fellow WP editor? --Yopienso (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the issue overlaps to some extent with left-right politics but you're wrong to assume that politics has been dictating Misplaced Pages editors' positions. Admittedly, the denialist position is dictated by politics - it's well outside the scientific consensus and it's almost entirely associated with the political right. The so-called "alarmist" position is within the consensus, which predicts impacts ranging from serious to catastrophic, and is supported by people from both left and right. It is a scientifically respectable position, unlike the denialist position. Taking a position on a scientific issue may be influenced by politics but it's simply wrong to suggest that people favouring a mainstream scientific viewpoint - your so-called "alarmism" - are merely "ideologues who want to spin it to the left".

Obviously I do want to work with you and I'm sorry if you feel I was misrepresenting you, but I should point out that you also made a personal attack on me - "I take you very seriously as a threat to Misplaced Pages's neutrality and accuracy". In the interests of starting afresh, will you apologise for that remark? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about my feelings, but about neutrality and accuracy. I gratefully accept with good faith that you want to work with me, and although we will probably not ever entirely agree on what "neutral" looks like, civility, candor, and personal integrity can "neutralize"  :-) that bogeyman. Ex.: Dave souza and I work together in mutual respect even though we sharply disagree on POV in some cases. I'm expecting the same for us.

Regarding accuracy, however, I didn't just feel that you misrepresented me--you did misrepresent me. You have not yet acknowledged or corrected or apologized for your inaccuracy, and your failure to rectify it at the time indicated to me it was deliberate. My "I take you very seriously as a threat to Misplaced Pages's neutrality and accuracy" was no attack but an honest expression of my perception of your "I find it hard to take you seriously when you claim, as you do on the article incubator talk page, that you are working to try to gain 'ascendancy over ideologues who want to spin it to the left.'" Were you making a personal attack against me? I understood it so. Had a hasty misreading of my original comment caused you to misunderstand me? I would forgive you for that. If so, why did you ignore my protest? Perhaps you did not see it due to my failure to sign it. I'm hopeful we can sort this out and move forward. --Yopienso (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm sincerely hoping for a fresh start and not wanting to pester you, this will be my last attempt to work through this issue with you. It's important to me that we can assume good faith with each other, and I can't with you if you won't take responsibility for your actions. I've left you two easy outs to save face--1. you read my original comment too quickly and honestly misunderstood me, 2. you didn't see my protest because I neglected to sign it. So, did you intentionally cherry-pick my words, thus distorting my meaning, or was this all a big mistake for which you wish to apologize? --Yopienso (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Don Murphy and socks

I full protected because I counted four editors involved in the edit war. I'm not a CU, so I'm not really sure what I can do to expedite the sockpuppetry investigation, but I certainly have no objection to unprotection if all involved are socks. Steve Smith (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Steve Smith (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I have no interest in the matter, but I thought you might want to know about thread on Misplaced Pages Review, just in case you hadn't seen it. Skinny87 (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, seen it - thanks. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheonan ROKS article

I have read and understood WP undue and NPOV. I respect the intentions behind these policies is not to allow the informational content of articles to be clogged up with hearsay and other unsubstantiated claims. However, you need to look at the Korean version of the article to see that the source you deleted (seoprise.com) though it might appear amateurish to you, is a highly respected political blog in Korea, serving a function at times similar to Wikileaks in a society where expressing dissenting opinion can cost you your career or worse. I understand you are a senior WP editor so I will defer to your judgement (what choice do I have?), however I have seen in my attempts to bring more nuance to this article that WP tends towards parroting MSM media claims as 'reliable sources' when in fact they are all copying from the same script. 'Overwhelming opinion' this is not, the homogeneity of 'opinion' across MSM is simply due to there being little financial benefit for journalists or editors to get to a more nuanced version of a story. I maintain that WP should allow more space for well-reasoned, well-sourced arguments which challenge mainstream opinion. In the case of the ROKS Cheonan sinking article, the Korean version is far more more informative and less (in my opinion) manipulative. Misplaced Pages should be neutral and independent of political influences one way or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Be gottlieb (talk • contribs) 17:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC) --Be gottlieb (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, sources which are considered unreliable in English are often considered more reliable in their home countries or native language. In Korea, from what I understand, blogs are often given more credibility as sources than in the west. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you'd read the reply I left on the editor's talk page, you'd have seen that he was addressing the wrong editor - I didn't remove the source he mentions. Please don't jump to conclusions. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Got it. But notice I didn't defend keeping the blog as a reference in the article. I'm reserving judgement on if it should be used just because it is used in the Korean article. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, I haven't passed any judgement on it, because I don't know enough (or for that matter anything!) about it to form a judgement of its reliability. That said, the fact that it's used in the Korean article doesn't really mean anything - that's a separate project, and I've noticed that the non-English wikis often tend to have lower content standards. I constantly find that articles in English are of a much higher standard, though that is probably more to do with the greater maturity of .en's development than anything else. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a tough question. Many of the weeklies here in Japan would probably be considered trash sources in the west, but in Japan they have more credibility because they're willing and able to tackle important stories, not just celebrity gossip, that the big Japanese newspapers, for a myriad of reasons, often won't touch. Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You touch on an important point - the reliability of sources isn't absolute, but is something of a cultural construct. The shūkanshi are an excellent example. The difficulty comes in translating an article based on one culture's idea of reliability (say something cited to shūkanshi sources) to an article reliant on a different culture's idea of reliability (as in the case of an English-language article). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole

Delingpole's newspaper blog is considered a reliable source under our guidelines. Calling it "junk" is not helpful. You can insist on attribution if you want to when using it, but you cannot claim it is unreliable. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

RfPP

I had to revert this edit of yours on RfPP, because it inadvertently removed several previous posts. You may want to restore whichever part of your own post you were updating. SlimVirgin 02:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

GoRight

I support your edit to remove taunts. I feel that creating pages for banned sockpuppets User:STOATblog, User:SafelyAnonymous, and User:Cursing Gnome by Kindzmarauli (talk | contribs) (himself an obvious sockpuppet) and then associating them with GoRight is in the same vain. One user has already tried to fix this, but that was immediately reverted. Q Science (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this Kindzmarauli person thinks they're being helpful. I disagree with their approach (preferring instead WP:DENY), but can accept that they are acting in good faith. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment at Climategate

Your comment at our Climategate article about the current ArbCom case took me by surprise. I thought everyone heavily involved in the CC debates already knew about it. This is the first time I've ever been involved in an ArbCom and I'm not sure about the correct procedures to follow. I know that nobody told me about it either. They haven't gotten to my evidence yet, and things seems to be going slowly, so you should have plenty of time to respond. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Short answer is no, I wasn't aware until very recently - why should I have been? I'm not a party and I wasn't notified at any stage by anyone. I'm not a general participant in CC articles - I've only ever edited a small number of articles in that topic area. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE UNPROTECT THE FYROM PAGE

Dear Chris Hello,

As there is a different History presentation.... and until now the name is an open issue...

We want to translate the Greek FYROM Page http://el.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FYROM to the en version of wikipedia

Please unprotect the FYROM page in the EN version of the 💕 WIKIPEDIA

Thanks for your understanding and your support

Marakis (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not able to do that, since I can't unprotect pages. If you'd like to ask an admin to unprotect that page, please ask at WP:RFPP. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively you could add the proposed text to the talk page. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

why are you not an admin?

Kittybrewster ☎ 07:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I was for a long time, but resigned. It's simply too much hassle, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

von Däniken

Well possible vD is a reliable source as well, at least his books are cited in these two academic sources. :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Shhh, you'll give certain people ideas. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Big picture

If you look at this from a wide angle, the Sussman et al. material could be used to show how a campaign against climate science has been waged for political and religious reasons. This could help inform the topic of the CRU incident, in effect describing the main antagonists and their audience, as well as their underlying motivations. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

RFE

Not sure that was a good idea. Anyway, you say I'm being accused by other editors of edit-warring, BLP violations and adding "bad sources" against consensus. - this should be supported by specific diffs demonstrating this behaviour William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have closed this. As far as I can see you acted appropriately in good faith and got a bit of unjustified flak. But RFE isn't really for vindication, sorry. --BozMo talk 09:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Climategate threats

Why are you threatening your fellow editors? How is this welcoming or being civil? Please explain to me the nature of the issue so we can discuss it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Duchamps comb#Repeated copyright violations and below. There's nothing to discuss, as it's been resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it a blatant copyright issue? Please explain the rationale. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I just posted a link to the explanation. Now please go and read it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I did read it and we have a media reception section in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever done NFCC copyright enforcement? Patrolled speedy deletions? Deleted copyright violations? No? Then I suggest that you drop this, because you're out of your depth. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't. So be welcoming , assume good faith and explain to me the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have explained it already in very simple terms to DC. What is unclear? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What's unclear is that it seems that these images are acceptable if they relate to critical commentary about the media. We have an entire section devoted to this subtopic and the very first sentence of the article specifically states "dubbed 'Climategate' in the media". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

First, the usage has to be directly related to the source. Suppose that was from Glenn Beck's show (I don't know that it is, I'm just using that as an example). It could then be used to illustrate critical commentary about Glenn Beck's view of the controversy. However, that would only be viable if Glenn Beck's view of the controversy was notable in itself (i.e. that it had been the subject of third-party commentary). There's a good example of this kind of usage at Truthiness, where a screenshot of Stephen Colbert is shown alongside commentary about a famous segment of his show.

Secondly, any fair use image can only be used if there is no free alternative. Since the informational content of the image is the text on the chyron, the obvious free alternative is to add text to the article instead of using the image. That in itself means that this image can never meet the non-free content criteria, since it will always have a free alternative.

I know this may sound rather abstruse and technical but for those of us who've administered copyright issues on Misplaced Pages, this really is an open-and-shut case. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Warning

If you continue stalking me as you did here ,, I will take this matter to AIN. Good day.--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do so. I can assure you that your editing record, with your history of copyright violations, blocks and disruptive editing, will be raised. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris, ignore this chap and don't get baited on the article talk page. The way this account just showed up to fight the same battle over the same image at this particular time is highly suspect. My guess is that this is being done deliberately to elicit bad reactions from the CRU regulars as if to give the arbs a show before the proposed decision. Don't fall for this. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have no intention of being baited. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

CRU regulars? Minor4th 09:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A regular, as in a habitué, a denizen, or a devotee. Are we all clear now? Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that, but it was the modifier "CRU" that I'm wondering about. Care to educate me about your meaning and to whom and in what context you are referrimg? Minor4th 16:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"CRU" is short for "Climatic Research Unit email controversy", and a regular is someone who edits it. Anything else? Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, do you have a minute? Who are the CRU regulars in the context of "this is being done deliberately to elicit bad reactions from the CRU regulars as if to give the arbs a show before the proposed decision." Obviously, ChrisO is one since you're instructing him not to be baited. Who else? Minor4th 23:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever are you talking about? Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My take is that Minor4th is asking after the implication in your comment that there is what amounts to an article ownership faction on the CRU page, and others, as has been discussed in that case, and rather all over the place. fyi, wikitionary links should be given in this form: wikt:habitué. Jack Merridew 20:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jack, ChrisO is upset with me, so please take this to my talk page or some other venue. I don't see any connection between talk page "regulars" and what you call an ownership faction. If I refer to ANI "regulars" on the noticeboard, that doesn't mean there's an "ownership faction". It means, there is a group of people who edit a certain article, and help contribute to improving it and discussing it. That's what we do on Misplaced Pages, so I'm not seeing a problem. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please dial back the invective

I found some of your comments at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Climategate_image troubling. I would ask you to reconsider your approach there to see if you can be less combative. I'd appreciate it. ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing problematic in what Chris said. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. However I was concerned enough to feel that a gentle suggestion was warranted. YMMV. ++Lar: t/c 06:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. ATren (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am as ever cool, calm and collected. But thanks for the advice. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP in need of work

I removed everything that didnt need a footnote and was left with nothing. I put a PROD on it before I thought to see if anyone was interested in trying to fix it: King Punisher‎

Active Banana (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If my recollection is correct, the lead of the article was something clsoe to a cut and paste from "King+Punisher"&dq="King+Punisher"&hl=en&ei=NkxPTPLMEoL78Ab8o9y-AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ Only it started by identifying a real person behind the nom de net and "is a cyberterrorist who ..." Active Banana (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But I think we are probably better off without it. Active Banana (talk)

Fair enough. We have enough problematic BLPs without adding to the number! -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/King Punisher.--Scott Mac 12:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm glad that you started an article on the fraud investigation into Mann's actions at the U of Va. I will immediately start to go through it and work on improving it. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 12:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment. You need to work on your approach. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment. You need to work on your approach. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Very funny. Here's a situation where another editor is reaching out to ChrisO (I happen to know he was working on a version of this article in his user space before Chris started) and ChrisO spurns him. That's not helpful... it's problematic, in fact but I tried a mild admonishment. Your comment, since it reeks of factionalism, isn't helpful either. You know better. Presumably. Knock it off. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, Lar's right on this occasion - it wasn't a helpful comment. I do have serious concerns about some of GregJackP's edits but it's not fair to raise that at the outset of this particular discussion. I've redacted the comment. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

You appear to be engaged in an edit war at Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation against multiple other editors. I suggest you discontinue any further edit warring, and ensure that consensus is reached on the talk page and the article is then changed to reflect that. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Read and understood. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding coordinated thuggery

It seems apparent that there is a coordinated effort to play a "taking my ball and leaving," when you show up at an article. Given that the goal of this effort is transparently to effect the embarassingly delayed arbcom case, it's probably best if you didn't edit the CC article space when the usual-suspects show up untill the case was done - tag (even overtag), complain once on the talk pages, and run, don't walk, away. Hipocrite (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Breathtakingly bad faith characterization, Hip. ChrisO was appearing to exert OWN on this article, and seems to have spurned a good faith effort to reach out to him, while edit warring on the article. I think your net advice of going to talk and making the points of concern clear, instead of edit warring, is good advice. But your framing of it is very poor, you need to try to stop seeing factions under every rock. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Next time I'll just email him when I see an obvious, coridnated pattern of behavior. All my best! Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Lar's complaint about someone else "seeing factions under every rock" is... words fail me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

SBHB - when Lar attempts show up to complain about the mechanics of someone giving good advice, it appears to be an effort to "do something." Without ascribing motive, it's probably best if you didn't respond to him - thank Lar for his advice, promise to do whatever action he asked you to do, and either do so, or just keep on keeping on. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry -- you are absolutely right; I broke one of my own rules.But still...Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's "coordinated" so much as being a matter of two editors - Minor4th and GregJackP (who apparently know each other off-wiki) following each other around, and now apparently following me around. Minor4th's interactions with me have been frankly malicious, and I have some major concerns about GregJackP's approach, but I haven't let either deter me from attempting to reach out with them and find compromise solutions. I intend to continue doing so. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

SBHB: "factions exist" does not equal "there are factions under every rock". Also, sometimes you ned to get out of the forest to actually see the trees. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert at Illusion

Chris, in the discussion on the talk page, four editors supported including the text, and three were against. So, please don't revert it until you have consensus that the information should not be there. There is no policy forbidding it, so you need to have consensus for removal before going against the majority and removing it. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on media Matters for America at WP:RS

Hello there, ChrisO. You recently participated in a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, MRC, FAIR, Newsbusters etc. Please participate on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder

Why wasn't Cyrus cylinder promoted to FA status? To me it looks like a high quality article - thanks to all your hard work. From my limited experience I can appreciate how much effort was involved. cheers Aa77zz (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Different approach

I apologize for anything I have said that has offended you, and apologize as well for not assuming good faith in your actions. I have decided to make a more concerted effort to assume good faith on your part and see if that helps the situation. I hope you will consider doing the same. Minor4th 00:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I appreciate your comments. I regret that we got off on the wrong footing - I'm happy to assume good faith and take it from there. Hopefully we can put the recent unpleasantness behind us and work together to improve Misplaced Pages. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

FOIA

There's a nuance in the legislation which I think you've missed in this comment. Both the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 have parallel provisions, with some differences. Both have sections in which the ICO makes a decision to enforce compliance by a public authority, which goes through a series of stages and if not complied with can end up in the high court as a contempt of court case. Both also have enforcement against the authority or an individual if requested info is destroyed etc., which goes to a magistrate and so is subject to the 6 month limitation. That's shown here: the section also mentions the press errors in rather vague terms. Suggest you change "as it couldn't investigate this issue due to statutory limitations" to "as it couldn't investigate this issue under Section 77 due to statutory limitations." It's a pain, but guess we'd better try to clarify this in the article. . dave souza, talk 12:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

2RR

You have reverted out my changes twice. This article is on 1RR. Please self revert. ATren (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's only one revert. I rewrote your first edit to merge it with a previous paragraph. That is not a reversion. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you removed the entire paragraph I added, and replaced it with a whitewashed version. That's a revert. Then you did it again. Two reverts. ATren (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Suit yourself. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I've said to others, it's best to let them have their way on the articles for the time being with the hope that arbcom fixes things. Hipocrite (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no expectation whatsoever that Arbcom will fix anything. It's shown itself in the past to be incompetent and politicised. I've actually had people apologising privately to me for a decision that was made in a previous arbitration case that I was involved in. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hopes and expectations are different things. Best to give an inch today to take a mile in a month. Hipocrite (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it's not 1RR, so nevermind, my mistake. ATren (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

New sanction for CC articles

You may wish to take a look at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Article tags. Sincerely, NW (Talk) 22:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Not sure why you've contacted me about it though, since I've had nothing to do with tagging articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just kind of did a general sweep of anyone editing the Mann article, regardless of whether or not they have been involved in the tag war, as well as a few people who I remembered off the top of my head to be involved with CC articles. There's a bunch more editors I could, and probably should inform. If you want to point anyone towards the general sanction, feel free. NW (Talk) 22:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I already posted a note to the Mann article talk page about your sanction, just to make sure people see it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla68

My suggestion to "back off" was not meant to be accusatory but for your own good. The more you let Cla68 know he's getting to you, the harder he's likely to push you. (There's probably a pithy Zen saying for the point I'm trying to make here but I can't think of what it is.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I really, really look forward to Cla68 getting kicked off the project. It can't happen a moment too soon. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't take the bait Cardamon (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. And ignore JEH William M. Connolley (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just coming here to tell you the same thing. --*Kat* (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I have to say I find Jehochman's indifference to Cla68's personal attack very disappointing, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think someone is trying to bait you then indifference is the best way to respond.--*Kat* (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Baiting is one thing, which I've been doing my best to ignore, but overt personal attacks with highly damaging and frankly defamatory claims are quite another. That should not be ignored, least of all by admins who are supposed to enforce policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide an acceptable name for your faction

You seem to oppose any label we try to give you. But there has to be a name for your faction that is acceptable, so please tell me what name to use when referring to your faction. "WMC faction" was an honest attempt; WMC objected; I tried "alarmist faction" (to contradict "skeptic" that we're labelled, even though we're not), and you object. So what do we call you? "Pro GW Faction"? "Foo Faction"? And don't respond with something wishy-washy like "there is no faction" because we all know there are two distinct sides here and to deny it is ridiculous. We just need a name for your side so when we discuss these issues everyone knows what we're talking about. ATren (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

After you name your faction, we'll name ours. Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"skeptics" -- I've been using that for months, even though it's not really descriptive. Apparently us so-called "skeptics" have thicker skins. ATren (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Dosen't work, sorry - amongst your faction, JohnWBarber, Lar, ATren (That's you!), Grundle2600, Heyitspeter and Cla68 have been described by your faction as objecting to that one. Hipocrite (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not part of any faction, so you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm a faction of one. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Right. ATren (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nightcrawlers, $2.50 the dozen. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd always taken you for more of a fan of Alexander Vasilyevich Alexandrov or the Communist Four, not of real music... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors. See #17. Guettarda (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you really claim there are not two distinct sides to this debate? Now who is in denial? ATren (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK then, it's clear you will not provide a name, so I will use "alarmist" ATren (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read alarmist and avoid name calling. The use of derogatory terms for other Misplaced Pages users is quite uncivil. Vsmith (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why any label is necessary. It's classic battlefield behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean y'all will quit using deniers and skeptics? It would be only fair. GregJackP Boomer! 14:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ATren has objected to being called septic so isn't in any position to be imposing labels on others. Quite why he thinks "WMC faction" makes any sense when apparently this is ChrisO's faction is beyond me. The true answer, of course, is that there is no faction William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)