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 / /Archive 29 / /Archive 30

Please add new comments below.

Have a barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Your comment about the FBI "seal" was rather funny. Thanks for a good laugh! --ANowlin: talk 22:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK

It's verified and ready to go. The infobox needs to be filled out a bit though. I'm sure 1935 is the correct date even though it's been changed since then.

Anyway this was in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 1:

Marcus Qwertyus 20:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL!

Actually 1941 is the correct date - the seal was created in 1940 and first used in January 1941. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid the character count is still not okay, can you add some more to make it ready for DYK? --Pgallert (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• ...and now it's not Marcus Qwertyus 16:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• While I'm not sure that this pc language adds much, this piece of vanity publishing at least indicates the spread of sealgate. Perhaps not worth adding, good luck with the more academic and historical research. . . dave souza, talk 18:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary CC article restriction

Please consider signing the CC restriction, as explained here. Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Milan Paumer

Hello! Your submission of Milan Paumer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dincher (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

nice work, but it's missing in line refs Dincher (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

ready for DYK . Dincher (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Heidi Klum's husband

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I know we've argued sometimes in the past, but I have to congratulate you on your integrity. Jimbo's comments on T:TDYK, I feel, were anathema to the entire point of this wiki, and are, to me, tantamount to allowing the government to needlessly interfere with the running of the encyclopedia. We need more editors to not bow to such pressures. Sceptre (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris, I'm afraid I have to take an opposite position. I've probably agreed with you more than not on most other issues. I agree that the FBI's position was asinine. But a DYK on this article smacks of retaliation for the FBI complaint. I just think it's a bad move and I really hope that you'll reconsider and withdraw the DYK nomination. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said on Jimbo's page, I think your compromise proposal is a very good one. Thanks for your flexibility on this. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation

-- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice article. Well done. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at JW's talk page

Concerning your comment at Jimbo Wales' talk page, I refer you to Dick Cheney's exchange with Patrick Leahy in the Senate on June 22, 2004. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are no about, I am a neutral and care less apart from the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Come off it, you've been following me around for some time. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not, I do my thing to protect living people and to support the wikipedia foundation as I see fit and am able, if you bounce off me because of that then lets try to contribute something together. Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Global Warning skepticism

You put the deletion discussion on the wrong place. It's supposed to go on the daily log, not inside another discussion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Thanks for fixing it! -- ChrisO (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Review of Books

I'm afraid your recent edit to the reliable sources noticeboard concerning the Scottish Review of Books deleted a number of posts, which I've restored. I've also answered your question about which Alastair McIntosh wrote that review. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that - and thanks for fixing it. Must have been a copy-and-paste error after the edit conflict, though I can't quite see how I managed to do it. Barnabypage (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

4 reverts on Michael Mann

A less confrontational attitude from all concerned would be helpful. The first one to cease name-calling and aggressive comments ("silly," "knock it off" etc.) is the winner. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should just ban these people from my talk page. In fact, let's do it. ATren, Marknutley, Minor4th and the rest of the crew are hereby banned from this talk page and any edits they make will be reverted on sight. I've deleted all existing edits from them (would that this was possible Wikipedia-wide!). Problem solved. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's probably not a textbook definition of 'less confrontational', but it can't help. Just remember to keep the edit summaries polite. Guettarda (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It can't help? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Freudian slip? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hurt. :) Got the first letter right. Got the number of letters correct. So I got the meaning completely wrong. Do you expect me to be perfect or something? Guettarda (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Firefly3xx

Hi there. You just asked that blocked user why he maliciously reported me on SPI. Don't bother, he does that because he thinks it's funny. He's done it several times now since I filed some of his own socks for SPI. De728631 (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. No worries. He made the mistake of posting to one of the most closely watched sockpuppet subpages, though... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is Scibaby?

Hello ChriscO...you left a message concerning a sock (argyle?) Scibaby. Who is Scibaby? RigidRotor (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Just wondering how you square restoring this to the lead, despite the poor sourcing, yet at the same time arguing that material from the W/Post about Michael Mann—material nowhere near as bad—might not even be notable enough to be in the article at all. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted without comment by a hit-and-run anonymous IP, and the material in question appears to be sourced to reliable sources. On the other hand your material from the Washington Post is not even about Mann. It doesn't even mention him. I've already explained in detail why you've got it wrong but you don't seem to want to acknowledge any possibility that you might have made a mistake. Please, for heaven's sake, familiarise yourself with the source material before pontificating on it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources look like rubbish to me, a barely notable newspaper and some websites, yet the material's considerably more damaging that the Mann stuff. And you restored it, so you're responsible for it. I'm asking you to explain why you're so protective of the BLP of someone you agree with, yet so cavalier with another. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

SV, this exchange leads me to conclude that the deletion from the Rekers page is WP:POINT editing. I have already reverted part of that deletion on other grounds -- in part because of your own assertion that other sources you consider better are available (and indeed there is a wealth of sourcing for that part of his bio). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, this is far from pointy editing. I didn't want to edit that article, but felt I couldn't leave that stuff in the lead. Chris restored highly critical material to the lead of a BLP based on the Miami New Times, a freesheet; rawstory.com; and pinknews.co.uk. Further into the article, I see sources such as blog.unzipped.net. and slog.thestranger.com. This is a BLP that Chris has edited 26 times since May, and the talk page 27 times in the same period. Yet holding himself up as a bastion of BLP elsewhere (when it comes to BLPs of people he agrees with politically), he restored these very poor sources to a BLP lead.

I did see that the same material is better sourced deeper in the article, otherwise I'd have removed it all, but that's not a reason to add bad sources too.

Look, the point is that other people have been alleging that certain editors use BLPs of people they don't like as dumping grounds for criticism from poor sources, while at the same time whitewashing BLPs of people they do like no matter how good the sources are, and this looks like an example. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is getting very silly and dishonest. I haven't edited the Rekers article for months and I reverted an obvious act of vandalism; if someone else has added blog sources to the article I agree that needs to be fixed, but you can hardly hold me responsible for that. I corrected an obvious factual error on the Mann article which I've explained repeatedly and you haven't even acknowledged. In response you have been repeatedly lashing out and attacking me with no justification whatsoever. Might I remind you that you are still under arbitration restrictions that you appear to be flouting? Do I need to bring this to the attention of others or are you willing to show a bit more cooperation and a lot less denunciation? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Witch report coming up. . . dave souza, talk 09:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this edit looks rather like you're responding to me, @ Atren would presumably clarify things. . dave souza, talk 13:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We've been down that path before...

it was called BADSITES, and I think it's a vast credit to Wikipedia that they've moved on from such things. You learn to tune out the people that can't/won't be reached, honestly (and if you look at my participation there, it's really dropped off), If there wasn't a Wikipedia Review, I quite think that there would be something like that already. It can be a useful safety valve. SirFozzie (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the Shark tank comment, trust me.. nothing would surprise me. Daniel Brandt listed information on me on Hivemind, I've been targeted be a couple of users there for mockery/abuse etcetera.. So, you learn to grow as thick a skin as possible. Me posting there wouldn't change it one way or the other, sadly. SirFozzie (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess, but I think you can understand where I'm coming from. As far as I'm concerned it's run by malicious kooks for malicious kooks, and the support of the non-malicious merely puts a veneer of respectability over a rotten core. It would have been far better to have consigned the kooks to their own website and started a reputable forum for reputable editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie, editors in authority shouldn't need a place to vent their spleen outside of the several thousand forums on Wikipedia. But if they do, they should keep zipped about current situations in which they are officially involved. I'm not commenting on your Internet posts, but I was just annoyed to notice that one administrator active in the CC discussions, a professed "uninvolved administator," is posting on that message board about WMC's block. I think that's wrong. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A fun exercise - count how many of the contributors to that thread are banned. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm less concerned with that than I am seeing editors who can and do wield power over others, and their participating in discussions concerning editors in which they are involved in active disputes. Since an arbitration committee member theoretically could become involved in anything, I don't see the wisdom of an arbcom member participating in net forums, if they take their volunteer responsibilities seriously. Websites outside of Wikipedia are exempt from Wiki conduct rules. I don't think it's fair or right for administrators, who have so much power anyway, to babble on about other editors outside of Wikipedia's jurisdiction, if they expect to be trusted by the community. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, Wikipedia Review is responsible for helping resolve several big time problems occurring in Wikipedia, which, if allowed to continue, probably would have resulted in immense damage to the project's credibility and reputation. You should be thanking WR for exposing them, not criticizing it. In fact, you should feel welcome to join and post there. Cla68 (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that as being relevant, as it relates to the situation we face in the CC pages. My concern is that external websites, whatever they may be, present two potential problems. One is that administrators/arbitrators/others in authority may make comments indicating prejudice on issues they're dealing with as administrators or arbitrators. The second problem is use of outside websites to circumvent Wikipedia canvassing rules, to encourage participation on one side of a dispute. Whether the websites themselves are good or bad is not the point. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Milan Paumer

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Star Carr house

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark your reverts as such?

[1] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice that someone had previously hatted it... Either way I don't think it contributes anything to the article's development, so it either needs to be hatted or archived. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Scottish Review of Books

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

HSI

[2] Why did you put all three negative reviews at the top instead of alternating them? Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What difference does it make? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who made the change, so obviously you do see a difference -- please enlighten us. ATren (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

re John W. Barber

I would be grateful if you would substitute your use of the name "Noroton" for the one the editor currently uses, in your comments at the Proposed Decision talkpage. I made similar requests when editors misused William M. Connolley's preferred style of address, if that carries any weight (it shouldn't, simple inference to expected courtesy should suffice.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, OK - I'm guess I'm just used to thinking of him as Noroton. Maybe I'm a bit behind the times. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually it seems that the section has been closed now. I'd better leave it alone. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually appreciate your using the name "Noroton". I'm certain you lost credibility with a number of administrators with that one word, and putting your poor credibility as some kind of nonpartisan observer into perspective was my goal. Interesting that Carcharoth deleted the discussion. I just hope more arbitrators get a look at it and follow my links. Here's your "problematic": If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann. Naaaah. There was never any reason to suspect anything here. Move along, move along .... Oh, you're lucky -- Carcharoth restored the section under a new title. Now you can fix it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As a random aside (and sorry to be stalking), as one who has I hope gotten over some past differences you'll find JWB is a thoughtful and courteous editor and a pleasure to disagree with amicably, if you are courteous in turn. If you challenge him, he challenges you back. So, take your pick. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thoughtful? Courteous? Amicable? Not seeing much sign of that... -- ChrisO (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Try being nice to him :) - Wikidemon (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one who's not being nice - have you seen the CC proposed decision talk page lately? It's a farrago of unprovoked tendentious claims and attacks on me by JWB, whose edits I have never, as far as I know, commented on adversely or favourably in any regard whatsoever. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So? Somebody's got to take the first step. I'm serious, sort of anyway. Really, you'll find him a pleasant chap if you can break the ice, and both set down the stick as they say. He and I used to clash, and it worked for us. How about you both declare a truce? Nice SAT Word there, I had to look it up. I assumed it was some kind of herb. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a moment - doesn't a truce require the willingness of both sides? I didn't start this; have you asked him whether he wants a truce? I'm not attacking him, remember - he's the aggressor here. Perhaps you could persuade him to withdraw his attacks against me on the CC proposed decision page. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

He's probably reading this. I can't speak for him but I'll bet he's willing if you are. Demands to change behavior best come later, first you have to get along. If you want the other guy to apologize first, well, you end up like the middle east and then you get Jimmy Carter coming over. You don't want Jimmy Carter to have to come over do you? - Wikidemon (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ChrisO~enwiki. You have new messages at WP:RPP.
Message added 23:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The time waste at ArbCom PD

Chris, that section regarding Mark was a monumental waste of time in the context of discussing the PD. If your goal was to provide evidence why the ArbCom sanctions should include you, then you did a great job.

Please learn to respect proper forums for subjects - if you want to rail about MN's edits (and I truly can sympathize), please find the right venue. The PD discussion is not the right place for that discussion.--SPhilbrickT 00:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. But frankly, since the collapse of the probation regime, there is no forum for discussing that kind of issue - and it shows why Marknutley is such an appalling editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)