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

Please add new comments below.

Incidentally

When is the inexplicable removal of the responses of scientists and scientific organisations going to be undone? I've discussed this on the talk page and there seems to be no significant opposition, and without recording that huge and ongoing response our article lacks the balance necessary to make sense of the subsequent vindications. The inquiry findings are unsurprising to those who are aware of this perspective, but have obviously caught many observers unaware. We need to permit the reader to see how the inquiries follow a path dictated by the scientific illiteracy of the trumped up charges, which were recognised very early on by those competent to do so. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sciologos. You have been involved with this issue in the past, perhaps you could help with investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted a query, below your comment, at that page. -- Cirt (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

3 of 4

Quite right. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Morganna_the_kissing_bandit.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Morganna_the_kissing_bandit.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 created in your upload log. 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 22:48, 10 May 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. feydey (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Morganna

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Angela Christine Smith

Are her expenses notable? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:GS/CC/RE

I closed the climate change probation enforcement request against you as No further action needed. As noted in the discussion section, being more careful in your future editing would be appreciated, though. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

please restore cited material

You just deleted whole-sale entire paragraphs that were cited with the rationale of "completely rewritten section; serious BLP issues with previous content." Such extensive rewriting should be done by consensus, at least before deleting 5 paragraphs. Can you please restore the edit? This version was far superior and much easier to navigate. Now the SA section is one big cluster that is very hard to read. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read my reply on the article talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Richard Goldstone. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read it. the material you removed is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced, it was sourced to the leadign newspapers in Israel, as well as to the Jewish Chron. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You evidently missed the fact that the Chomsky paragraph is sourced to his own personal website, in contravention of WP:BLP#Avoid self-published sources, and the Derschowitz claim is simply defamatory. If you restore it again you will be taken to arbitration enforcement. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You've removed much more than the Chomsky paragraph, and the rest of your deletions were of material sourced to Yediot, Ha'aretz and the Jerusalem Post - all of which are reliable sources. I've reported you for edit warring. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Violation of WP:3RR at Richard Goldstone

Hi, you have violated WP:3RR at Richard Goldstone. I recommend that you self-revert yourself, otherwise I will be reporting you for edit warring. Breein1007 (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is at arbitration enforcement now - see WP:AE#Wikifan12345. I'm obviously not going to revert to a version that contains serious BLP violations. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then I am forced to take it to the edit warring board. Also, I see that you have notified someone of the discretionary sanctions. You will notice that at the bottom of that message, it says that administrators are intended to be giving out that notification. Breein1007 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since Momma's Little Helper is a relatively new editor, s/he needed to be aware of those sanctions. That's now been done. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the notification makes it very clear that admins are intended to inform editors of those sanctions, and then record the notification on the appropriate page. As you are not an admin, I will suggest that in the future you ask an admin to give the notification if you feel the user needs to be made aware. While we're on the topic, have you been made aware of the sanctions? If not, I think an admin needs to officially do that. Breein1007 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was involved in enforcing the sanctions as an admin. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bishop Hill blog

Chris, I favor merger of this blog article to the Montford article, and I also believe that it is so lacking in notability that it needs to be stripped to its bare essentials in any merger. However, it is by no means a certainty that the article on this blog is going to be merged. There is even sentiment for merging Montford into this blog article. If this article survives, it needs to be a fair and balanced article, and currently it reads like hagiography. I hope you'll reconsider removing the description of the blog in that British blog book, as it adds balance to an article that sorely needs it. Thanks, ScottyBerg (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

request for arbitration

Hi, I see you are the leader of the Kosovo Wikiproject, I would like some advice on this : Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Districts_of_Kosovo_in_Serbia

I have created a bunch of issues to look into and would like some guidance. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Kosovo/Attention_needed

thanks, mike James Michael DuPont 16:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Thames tunnels.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thames tunnels.png, 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.

File source problem with File:Ikbrunel.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ikbrunel.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 created in your upload log. 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 03:03, 21 May 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. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd's of London

I feel Talk:Lloyd's_of_London#Slavery_Denial the slavery link does not merit the WEIGHT it is presently given. Please would you consider this, if time allows. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

"Awarded to ChrisO for acting as an example of reason, fairness, firmness and civility as a stunning editor"

-- Kittybrewster ☎ 09:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Seconded William M. Connolley (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:110.137.33.20

Every edit by this IP seems to be a hoax + vandalism. They all need reverting and he needs blocking. All are unreferenced and unverifiable. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Vipera palaestinae

It makes no sense to list Israel and Palestine if you are assuming that "Palestine" refers to the geographical region. The source is clearly referring to the Palesitnian territories, and they simply made a mistake in their terminology. Just as you said about Goldstone, there is no reason why we should carry through a clear error from a source. This harms the integrity of our encyclopedia. Breein1007 (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a reply to the article talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't post a response... you didn't address the issue. You just repeated something irrelevant. Writing Israel and Palestine is one of two things. A) Superfluous or B) Against NPOV policies. Take your pick. In any case, I responded on the article talk page. Breein1007 (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You still failed to address the issue, and posting a notice on the No Original Research board is an interesting choice. Anyway, I won't be violating WP:3RR, but I hope you will consider the edit you have put into place and think carefully about whether or not you want your record to show an example of such POV-pushing. Because now that I have made it very clear to you that the author could not have logically been referring to Palestine as a geographic region, it is clear that you are supporting the use of the term "Palestine" to refer to the "Palestinian territories". Breein1007 (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm supporting nothing of the sort. The basic facts are not in dispute. The source clearly does not use the terminology you want to use; changing cited text to fit your own political views is emphatically not allowed. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources can be found that call the Gaza War a massacre. This doesn't mean that we refer to it on Wikipedia as such. Doing so would violate Wikipedia policies. Your edit does the same thing. Breein1007 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a complete different issue of conflicting POVs. One side calls it a massacre, the other has a different POV. I note that our Gaza War article refers to both POVs, as it should. That has nothing to do with the issue here, which is whether editors should be able to "correct" sources that they think are wrong. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It is an identical issue, actually. If we used a source like Al Jazeera for info on the Gaza War, we would not call it a massacre, even though Al Jazeera does. The article Palestinian territories makes mention of the fact that some people refer to it as "Palestine". Just like the Gaza War article mentions that some people use the word "massacre". This has everything to do with the issue here. Breein1007 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Goldstone

Hi Chris, I took a bit closer look at the article today. On its face I see really no particular issues with it, except there are some segments I think may be really too long -- so much exposition that at points it approaches repetitious. Classic signs of too much research to try to shoehorn into a format! Other than that, I don't particularly see any text that needs to be changed. But, with that being said, I am not really familiar enough with this subject to know whether there are any holes in the story that need to be plugged, either. That's why I am really hoping that the detractors at the article's talk page will make a genuine attempt at polite discussion about portions they dislike, with proposed changes. Maybe they'll be valid suggestions and maybe they won't, but in any case for now I will continue trying to entice them into productive discussions and hope it bears fruit. Thanks again. — e. ripley\^talk 02:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification: General sanctions and 1RR restriction on Richard Goldstone

You've probably had one of these before, but everyone's getting one: As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. In accordance with these sanctions, the article Richard Goldstone is under a 1RR restriction. Details can be found on the talk page. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

ARBPIA notifications

No big deal. In the past, the same issue led to a dust-up between Jaakobou and RolandR.

I don't know why the template language says anything about who has to provide the notice. Obviously an uninvolved admin has to impose the sanctions, but I don't see what difference it makes who provides the notification. <shrug> — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's especially odd as the arbitration remedies don't mandate that the notification should be posted by an administrator. They say merely that "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Let's take that bit out of the template language; it's causing too many problems and doesn't have any rational basis that I can see. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I think the proposed change is a good one. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You ruined my article List of rivers of Egypt!

Actually, nice work - especially pointing out that the tributaries aren't actually in Egypt. It would be good to make the list look more like a list...but that could be tricky. Anyway, I think the next internet searcher who wants to know whether there are any other rivers in Egypt will have a more definitive answer. Stevage 04:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rubbing salt into wounds...

...Like this, is not particularly helpful. You're not a neutral party in this, so you shouldn't pretend to be. Let me deal with enforcement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not enforcing anything; I'm simply pointing out the policy requirements, since nobody else did. If you want to do that yourself, that's fine by me. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been mentioned

You have been mentioned extensively here. While I am only interested in an explanation from Georgewilliamherbert at this point, I thought I owed you the notification that I mentioned your name several times (though I have no doubt that you would have found it on your own). You are welcome to comment if you feel it necessary. Have a wonderful afternoon, Breein1007 (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Email?

Could you email me to let me know your email address? I may have it somewhere but I can't seem to find it now. I wanted to make a private comment about our discussion of some WP:BLP issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed you. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Erasing Palestine...

User:Breein1007 appears to be on a campaign to remove links to the article on Palestine as well as removing reference to "Palestine" in other links -- even insisting on this in that article on a snake (Vipera palaestinae). Here's a sample of recent changes along these lines: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Seems to me like a sustained POV campaign that should be addressed somewhere/somehow. Any thoughts on where/how? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest raising it on AN/I. It's an obvious campaign of POV disruption. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest you raise it with Breein1007 first ? Despite being a diehard advocate for the State of Israel, bless him, Breein1007 will listen to policy based arguments if you catch him in a good mood. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Goldstone

I know you volunteered to take a 2 week break from the article for which I'm very grateful. I think it's best if all the most vocal editors took a break. This is just to let you know that per the AE thread you started, it's been made official, so please don't edit the article or its talk page for 14 days from my timestamp. There's no ban on discussing it in other fora, but I'd appreciate it if you could do your bit to avoid fuelling the dispute any further. Your cooperation would be very much appreciated. The same goes for Lev Reitblat (talk · contribs) and Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) so if you feel they have violated this ban, you may request action on my talk page or at AE. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Gratuitous Comments

In the future, please refrain from leaving gratuitous comments on my Talk page as you did here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Blatant anti-Chuckle Brothers bias

Your edit here reveals the true extent of your bias against the Chuckle Brothers! (By which I mean: "Good catch. Embarrassed I missed it...") TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 13:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I freely admit to being biased against the Chuckle Brothers - can't stand 'em. It takes all sorts... -- ChrisO (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla clash map

You mentioned something about coordinates. I've responded with sources in the talk page with a source if you are interested. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for keeping some kind of control over the interception articles. We disagree on some things but are both committed to the project. And thanks for your praise on the semiprotection.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of getting 2007–2010 blockade of the Gaza Strip put under the same protection for the time being ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaza Flotilla clash

See the edit you removed. The whole passage doesnt deal with Twitter, i was just restoring what was previously cited, at anyr ate, i took out thw twitter bit.Lihaas (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chris, can I get your input on the Notable people section? The entire section was moved to a separate article but then a few names were left and some what was left seemed biased. I opened up a talk section and temporarily removed the names/bias. Thoughts from an experienced editor would be appreciated. :) Zuchinni one (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful edits there :) Zuchinni one (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem! -- ChrisO (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

--Zubair71 (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Mr ChrisO ! can you explain me, how you see my edit as "Vandalizing" ? I only used the most appropriate words which explains the true situation and the events. So you please tell me which of my words you think causing vandalization? zubair71 (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have more diffs?

about his edit warring? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I posted what I had. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		In recognition of topping out 40,000 edits, and having the right opinion about the Chuckle Brothers.Gonzonoir (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In re. this. X!'s tool makes it 41,500! Gonzonoir (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes well done indeed. I hope it's no breach of sanctions to note for you that on the flotilla page, one ship's name is transcribed errationally. Ie. Eleftheri Mesogeio (Eλεύθερη Mεσόγειος) =Eleftheri Mesoyios. No doubt newspapers don't care for these things, but if 'eu' is transcribed, appropriately, as pronounced ('ef'), then linguistic coherence requires that this principle of phonetic transcription should hold for the rest of the phrase. RegardsNishidani (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought of that issue. :-) The transliteration comes from a Greek newspaper. Greek names are a pain to transliterate accurately, so I tend to prefer taking the transliterations directly from Greek sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Pie for you!

		Have a Pie!
		You are hereby awarded ONE PIE for reaching 40,000 edits!

Arakunem^Talk 16:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 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) 17:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect

To put a stake through its heart properly you need to create the AFD page William M. Connolley (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

In progress! -- ChrisO (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Stewart

BLP happening there. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo

I've removed the photo, added by another editor (I just moved it assuming it was legit). Pexise (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem ;) Pexise (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

For the avoidance of doubt, may I specifically draw your attention to my latest comment in the ANI thread you started? Regards, ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 10:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ChrisO~enwiki. You have new messages at Talk:The_Gore_Effect#It_never_snows_in_London.
Message added 11:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Still waiting

For you to remove this PA As you have already edited that talk page today and not removed it i can only assume you did missed my request for you to redact it mark nutley (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been online twice since i posted this message, please redact your PA or i will have no option but to file a RFE mark nutley (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

The sections got refactored, so I'm posting this to avoid the possibility that you looked at the prior message and didn't realize what it referred to.

Hello, ChrisO~enwiki. You have new messages at Talk:The_Gore_Effect#Moved_From_Duplicate_section.
Message added 18:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You have over 40,000 edits. Surely you know policies by now.--SPhilbrickT 18:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there ChrisO, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:ChrisO/drafts. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

House of Iran in Balboa Park

Hi, Chris! I got your note asking if I could take a picture of the plaque in front of the House of Iran, in Balboa Park (in San Diego). I'm not likely to be getting to the park any time soon, so maybe you'd better ask someone else. Here's the House of Iran website, http://houseofiransandiego.org/ , and their e-mail, info@houseofiransandiego.org , maybe somebody affiliated with them could take the picture for you and e-mail it to you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested

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

DYK for Lothair Crystal

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm placing this Barnstar on your page in recognition of your excellent contributions to the Richard Goldstone page, and your handling of disruptive editors - my faith in Wikipedia has been restored! Pexise (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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 [9]. 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

		The British Museum barnstar
		For Cyrus, Hoxne and Lothair! Witty Lama 23:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

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: [10] 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 Wikipedia 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 [11] 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 Wikipedia: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)

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

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
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) 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[12], 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

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia's neutrality and accuracy. [Whoops--another missed signature--sorry--signing several days later. Yopienso (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 ^{talk|contribs} 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/w/index.php?title=FYROM to the en version of wikipedia

Please unprotect the FYROM page in the EN version of the FREE Encyclopedia 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 [13][14] 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)

[15] 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

Hello, ChrisO~enwiki. You have new messages at Minor4th's talk page.
Message added 19:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Climategate threats

[16] 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 Wikipedia, 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 [17],[18], [19] 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.[20] 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 Wikipedia, 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)

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)

[redacted]

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)

Suggestion on WMC's talk page

Chris, I really need to know what you meant by this. It isn't really a private conversation, because Wikipedia user talk pages are publicly viewable by Wikipedia's readers. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Which word in that is confusing you, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If Chris needs me to clarify what I'm asking he can do so. Cla68 (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with you. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? Then why did you link to a comment of mine directly underneath it? Cla68 (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Separate issue. Now please stop pestering me - I'm not your monkey. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Whose monkey are you, then? :) (sorry, couldn't resist, hope you find it funny in the spirit intended)++Lar: t/c 19:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Struck me as a reasonable question, I'd be interested in the answer (from ChrisO) too. Seems you were encouraging WMC to post something to his blog on the topic, is that a correct read, ChrisO? ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)