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&section=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)

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)

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)

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 Reeves_Wiedeman@newyorker.com to let me know the best way to reach you. Thank you for your time, and I hope to speak with you soon.