User talk:Chris Chittleborough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Busy desk.svg This user is busy in real life and probably will not respond swiftly to queries.

Please reply to comments I make on the same page. I always watch pages where I leave comments for at least a week. Replying there will make it easier for other users (and me — and perhaps even you) to follow our conversation. Thanks.

Please add new items at the bottom of this page. (Click here to do that.)

Protein Wisdom[edit]

Chris, I just wanted to give you a "heads up" that there's been some aggressive trimming of the "Protein Wisdom (blog)" article. Someone came in and took out some of the old material, but I had the impression that they were a little overaggressive. I attempted to add in a few details and got reverted. Since then I've added some more--more current--material, along with lavish citations/sources. But I'm hoping that the hyperaggressive pruner-of-entries will be happy and not revert all my recent changes. I'm wondering if you might be able to add the PW entry to your watch list and back me up if someone tries to gut it again. Scooge (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look (and deleted one particularly offensive piece of POV). I'll try to do more later. (I want to put back some mention of "the protein wisdom conceptual series" and the "red pills found behind the sofa cushions", or something else which gives readers some idea of Jeff's ...idiosyncratic... approach). But your edits seem good.
IMO the anon is a covert POV-pusher, trying to use Wikipedia to damage a conservative's reputation, a popular pastime these days. I expect he already has an account here. Sigh. CWC 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. He's back now, BTW. I'll poke around there for a little while, and then leave it to you.Scooge (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

So I've gone back in and reinstated a lot of the material that was gutted from the entry, including the red pills. I'm afraid that my citation abilities are a little bit shaky, so I'm not positive that everything is back in the right place. Plus, the eviscerator will doubtless be back at some point. When I last reverted him, I pointed out that he can't remove sourced material and references without discussing it on the "talk" page first. We'll see what happens. Scooge (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

R.S. McCain/Ann Althouse[edit]

Thanks for rescuing my RSM image; I don't know why I couldn't figure out how to get it to show up, once I'd uploaded it. The process seemed intuitive enough in the past, but last night I got hung up--and then my sleeping pill started to kick in, so I realized I was NOT going to figure it out until after I slept.

BTW, the Ann Althouse POV-er is threatening to come back and mess with her entry, but there are already a few of us looking out for that one, so we should be able to deal with it.16:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, Scooge. I saw that you'd had trouble with that image, so I tried to fix it. It took ages! I think the {{infobox journalist}} template is a bit broken. In the end, I found another article that used that template and copied from it.
I don't have Ann Althouse on my watchlist, so I took a quick look. Seems pretty good to me. Also, your comments here are spot-on. I think Prof A practices a certain degree of inscrutability in her politics to get people thinking; that's part of why her blog is so interesting. Cheers, CWC 17:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy declined - The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off[edit]

I have declined your G4 speedy, after comparing this with the version deleted at AfD a year ago. The reason for deletion was lack of sources: that one had only two references, its own website and IMDb. This one has several more, including claims of 6 million Youtube views and a hoo-hah about allegations of it being censored. I think it is improved enough for G4 not to apply, but feel free to take it back to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I'll defer to your judgement. Cheers, CWC 18:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sowell NPOV violation example[edit]

Hello, I've listed you as an example of NPOV reasoning for the consensus in the Sowell article.

See the discussion here.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sowell NPOV violation example[edit]

Hello, I've listed you as an example of NPOV reasoning for the consensus in the Sowell article.

See the discussion here.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not interject your POV into the Sowell article.[edit]

If this continues I will have to ask for arbitration and a possible comment on your behavior. We reached an agreement in the discussion please abide by it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

First, this not an NPOV issue, it is an issue of whether MMFA is a WP:RS and of WP:BLP.
Some background: I lost my internet connection on June 23rd, did not regain it until June 29th and am still catching up on my reading (#!#@^&@#$%@ hardware failure), or I would have said a lot more at the NPOVN discussion.
The edit you reverted was intended to be a continuation of our discussion. Inserting any of MMFA's lies about Sowell, even in the form of the title of their lying posts, violates BLP. I would be happy to discuss this at any forum, including RFAR.
In case you haven't noticed, I contend that MMFA are liars. I would be happy to prove this, with copious examples. My aim is to establish a rule that MMFA must never be cited nor mentioned in any Wikipedia article about non-lefties without qualifications such as "MMFA, a bunch of known liars, claimed that X said Obama is just like Hitler", or "MMFA, which conservatives regard as a sleazy, dishonest, hateful propaganda factory[1], claimed that X said Obama is just like Hitler", or something like that. I will therefore remove any mention of MMFA's attacks on conservatives that are not so qualified from any Wikipedia article I find them in. I strongly believe that I am required to do so by BLP (a policy), and that such removals do not count against 3RR.
My proposed rule would result in removal from Wikipedia of attacks that were made only by MMFA. I contend that this filtering effect is how Wikipedia's policies should work. An attack by MMFA that no other RS goes along with has no more relevance to this encyclopedia than Stormfront comments about a non-Aryan person. So the question of whether you can find sources other than MMFA for criticism of Sowell etc is not a side issue but in fact the core issue.
BTW, CartoonDiablo you have been admirably civil during this debate, and I appreciate that. (Also: great username!) Cheers, CWC 08:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks and all but the point of having the MMfA citations isn't to use them as a source it's to prove they were against the statements like the DNC. Even if the source was the Flat Earth Society or KKK, whether or not they are "liars" or "lied" is irrelevant, what's relevant is they replied to the statement just like Palin etc. Removing them would be a complete violation NPOV (which is an issue since your making a POV argument against using the source at all) and a misunderstanding of a whole bunch of other policies. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism[edit]

Edmund Burke2 c.jpg Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism.
Simply click here to accept! – Lionel (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I've joined.

Edmund Burke2 c.jpg

Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism!

We are a growing community of editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles related to conservatism. Here's how you can get involved:

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome!
- Addbot (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Per Talk:Climate Audit I've moved Richard A. Muller response to skeptics to Stephen McIntyre.[edit]

Yeah, that news item is probably appropriate for Richard A. Muller (though I haven't followed the discussion there) but not relevant enough for use in any other article.
I guess that the anon sees something in that article that the rest of us don't. Perhaps he/she is less than fluent in English? (though still better at English than I am in any other language, sad to say). Cheers, CWC 11:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Talk:Stephen McIntyre, copied here for convenient reading (with preceding message for context):

  1. No reason for addition, per Talk:Richard A. Muller and Talk:Climate Audit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  2. The reason, again, is his counterpoint to Stephen McIntyre. (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  3. If you're trying to contrast Muller's approach with McIntyre's, the SciAm news item is not enough, and putting in the article would be WP:Original Research. If you can find an acceptable ("Reliable") source which sets out to compare and contrast Muller & McIntyre, that would be fine. (Plus, I'd like to read such an article.) Hope this helps, CWC 11:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Any comments for Talk:Stephen McIntyre ?[edit]

Any comments for Talk:Stephen McIntyre ? Per Talk:Climate_Audit#Add_May_2011_SciAm_article_on_Richard_A._Muller. (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup this Saturday[edit]

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup at North Melbourne this Saturday (23 July). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 16 Hope to see you there! JVbot (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC) (this automated message was delivered to all users at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne/Participants)

Littlejohn Article[edit]

Hi, sorry to trouble you but a new WP user has come on the Littlejohn article and made massive unsupported changes including restoring the 'Johann Hari' section which you deleted with good reason. He/she seems very determined to get as much negative information in the article as possible. Your support on the Talk:Richard Littlejohn would be appreciated. Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page. I'd never heard of Littlejohn until recently, but I did recognise one name: Nick Griffin. (I've been interested interest in far-right groups since my late father helped chase the Australian League of Rights out of the National Party.) In fact, I Googled “"Richard Littlejohn" "Nick Griffin"” to see if there were any decent sources for Littlejohn being Griffin's favourite columnist. Instead, I found this. I suspect Griffin was just trying to appeal to some of Littlejohn's readers; extremists like Griffin are always after marksrecruits. Cheers, CWC 20:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

About Stephen Suleyman Schwartz page[edit]

Dear Colleague,

I made small modifications to this page, but want you to know someone posted terms like "neo-con" to describe SSS. My notes can be seen on talk page. Karen KSRolph (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. Thanks also for your good edits there. I've made some more changes and added a "Warning to Editors" on the talk page.
Someone out there sure hates SSS. Foiling him is tedious but worthwhile. Cheers, CWC 15:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

re Mark Steyn[edit]

Hi Chris Chittleborough. I don't think your recent edits are necessarily a particularly good idea, and the edit summaies

  • "Restore essential topic re consensus of people who do not have an interest in hiding Steyn's masterful demolition of 2 Canadian lefties"


  • "Undid revision 452514092 by Herostratus (talk) - all the arguments for the false consensus are invalid or irrelevant; Steyn-denigrators making them have no clue."

are probably not indicative of a WP:NPOV approach. I understand that you may think that Steyn is the bee's knees, but this is probably not the best way to approach the article. The "Much more to come" edit summary on your last edit also gives me pause. How much more? This does not seem to have a been particularly notable incident, which is evidenced partly by the fact that it wasn't discussed in notable press venues. Beyond that, constructs such as "left-wing pro-censorship professor of journalism" and so forth are not usually a good idea, and per WP:BLP are probably not allowable. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but note WP:NPOV as one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Also, Steyn himself is not a reliable source for most matters, see WP:RS.

I went to a lot of trouble to look into this matter and I don't think it's very notable. If you want to refute this, we can talk, which discussion belongs on the article's talk page. Maybe we could run a WP:RFC on the matter or whatever, but the approach of just putting in what you want and only engaging via edit summaries is not recommended and it'd be a good idea of you make the case for the material on the article's talk page before proceeding any further down this path. Herostratus (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Did your "lot of trouble" include reading either of Steyn's key responses? How many "apologies" did you read?
To expand on my explanation at Talk:Mark Steyn about getting a clue: In order to judge POV vs NPOV, you have to understand the incident, which requires doing some reading that most of the anti-Steyn editors have obviously failed to do, plus a lot more clue about the conservative blogosphere than any of them have demonstrated. Using the MSM to filter for significance won't work here, as I explained on that talk page.
To understand the timing of the recent censorship push, read this.
A consensus of ignorant anti-Steyn editors cannot be valid. If some of them turn themselves into knowledgeable anti-Steyn editors, that would be different.
About Miller: "left-wing" is easy to get a good cite for, "pro-censorship" is too terse (I was in a hurry) but demonstrably true. Do you know why it is relevant?
Your suggestion that I think "that Steyn is the bee's knees" is insulting, silly and wrong. My main concern is that he has anecdote/data problems: while he is really good with anecdotes, he is often weak on analyzing data.
Censoring this incident from the article would be like omitting USS Frank E. Evans from the HMAS Melbourne (R21) article. It's not the most significant thing about Steyn, but it is important. It has to stay.
CWC 19:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't read any of it. My concern is that it's not notable. Reading a book or whatever doesn't tell me if the book is notable; for that I need evidence of second-party reviews of the book, sales figures, people citing the book, and so forth. Right? No material contains its own proof of notability, as a rule, I'd say. Herostratus (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: September 2011[edit]

The Right Stuff
September 2011
An Historic Milestone

By Lionelt

Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.

The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."

WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"

New Style Guide Unveiled

By Lionelt

A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.

I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.

Richard M. Nixon, ca. 1935 - 1982 - NARA - 530679.jpg
3,000th Article Tagged

By Lionelt

On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.

Project Portal Join Archives Newsroom Subscribe Suggestions


Hi Chris, I just learned about your brother and I wanted to offer my condolences. I see you're active at Mark Steyn--I'll put it on my watchlist. – Lionel (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: October 2011[edit]

The Right Stuff
October 2011
An Interview with Dank

By Lionelt

6 Star.svg

The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.

Q: Tell us a little about yourself.
A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.

Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects?
A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.

Q: What makes a WikiProject successful?
A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership?
A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.

If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.

UK Pro-life demonstrators.jpg
Abortion Case Plods Along

By Lionelt

The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on theWorkshop page.

Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.

Article Incubator Launched

By Lionelt

Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy restored to the Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts. Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN.


WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated.

We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.

Project Portal Join Archives Newsroom Subscribe Suggestions

The Right Stuff: November 2011[edit]

The Right Stuff
February 2012
WikiProject Conservatism faces the ultimate test

By Lionelt

On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page.

Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.


In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.

October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.

Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

Timeline of conservatism is moved

By Lionelt

Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism.

Project Portal Join Archives Newsroom Subscribe Suggestions

Jonathan Kay[edit]

It's in the passport that he's using as his Facebook profile picture. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OK! Good work, VoG. Thanks.
I've wrote a short explaination of this at Talk:Jonathan Kay#Middle name.
Also, sorry for forgetting to sign my note on your talk page.
Cheers, CWC 02:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for doing that - I wasn't aware of the change, and it led me to the new Tinker book by Wen Spencer, Elfhome, which probably should be added to his article. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Baen sent an email to all the webscription customers, of which I am one. So I thought I'd try to update the relevant article(s). I've nearly finished the articles that used to wikilink to Webscriptions. I'll do a quick update on Baen Ebooks then go to bed. It would be great if you could check/correct my work.
BTW, Wen Spencer is a she. (I think Wen is short for Wendy.) Cheers, CWC 15:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Melbourne Meetup[edit]

Hi there. Just inviting you to the Melbourne meetup this Sunday at 11am, to celebrate our 11th anniversary. Details on that page. Hope to see you there! SteveBot (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (on behalf of Steven Zhang)

The Right Stuff: January 2012[edit]

The Right Stuff
January 2012
The Conservatism Portal-screenshot 02-07-12.jpg
Wikipedia's Newest Featured Portal: Conservatism

By Lionelt

On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.

Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline.

Project Scope Debated

By Lionelt

Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.

Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.


Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove.

Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

Why is Everyone Talking About Rick Santorum?

By Lionelt

Rick Santorum by Gage Skidmore.jpg

Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article.

The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.

Project Portal Join Archives Newsroom Subscribe Suggestions

February Melbourne Meetup[edit]

Hi All. Just letting you know that we have another meetup planned for Melbourne, on Sunday, 26th February at 11am. More details can be found at the meetup page. Pizza will be provided. Look forward to seeing all of you there :-) SteveBot (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup[edit]

Hey all, just a reminder that there's a meetup tomorrow at 11am in North Melbourne. There are more details at the meetup page. Hope to see you tomorrow! SteveBot (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Scott Ott[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Scott Ott has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No content

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sephiroth87 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Replying to Chris's Explanation.[edit]

Hi Chris, thank you for that detailed explanation. I had found difficulties opening file types in the past and wanted to contribute by providing users with a source of info explaining how to do that. Going back I notice I made a mistake in editing the correct pages to begin with. GEO, GEM, GAF and the GB page edits were intended for the file types, I somehow mixed up those acronyms and edited different pages, so sorry about that! It's actually a tad embarrassing! Chris, what if I can't find a Wikipedia page for a particular file type, could I create one? Thanks in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Evanso (talkcontribs) 09:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Clearly you have a lot to offer this project, so I hope you keep contributing. As to the possibility of new articles about particular file types ... it's complicated and lengthy, so I'll reply on your talk page. Cheers, CWC 12:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell[edit]

We've had this NPOV discussion before, to the point of settling it in arbitration. If you attempt to make any more violations NPOV it won't be arbitrated and it may result in blocking or banning. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  1. You violated NPOV, V, RS and most of all BLP by inserting deceptive, hostile, nasty propaganda by a dishonest nasty, propaganda organization into an article about a living person. Don't do that!
  2. Reporting MMfA attacks on Sowell in our article is just like reporting attacks on him by white supremacists. Don't do that!
  3. I will, of course, undo your policy violations in that article.
  4. What arbitration? Did you mean this NPOVN discussion? Where it was established that you were/are editing against consensus? Note that your latest edit is not consistent with your final comment there.
  5. I would be delighted to defend my edits (modulo finding the time) in any appropriate forum, including RFAR.
Good health to you — CWC 05:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Look, this is going to arbitration as well as a comment on your behavior. We've arbitrated the issue ad nausum and a consensus based on violations of NPOV is clearly not legitimate. If you think your KKK comparison will hold up then by all means go argue it but this has gone on long enough. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#section name 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—


The request for arbitration was turned down by the arbitrators. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
That didn't take long. Thanks, Guerillero. CWC 16:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Thomas Sowell". Thank you.

Steve Jackson Games[edit]

Thanks for your participation there! Doniago (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I had vague plans to edit the relevant articles to mention that Kickstarter project, and was glad to see SoCalSteeler get in first. I think we'll be expanding our coverage some more in the next few weeks. (I now think that the project will have significance beyond Steve Jackson Games and Ogre (game), at least as an example of great 'non-traditional' marketing/customer-relations.) Cheers, CWC 07:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

From CartoonDiablo =[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#section name 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—


— Preceding unsigned comment added by CartoonDiablo (talkcontribs) 23:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

My response is here. CWC 06:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

July WMAU Melbourne Meetup[edit]

Hi, At last month's June meetup we discussed the idea of setting up a Training Course at a University of the Third Age (U3A) to be held in 2013 and named Becoming a Wikipedia editor. In order to get this course up and running we are calling for volunteers to help develop the idea, and either tutor part of the course, or provide one on one help to students in the class. All local Wikipedians are welcome to discuss this at our 11am meetup to be held this Sunday on 22 July. Please add your name to the attending list at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 23. Food and beverages are provided. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited JAR (file format), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solaris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Meetup invitation: Melbourne 26[edit]

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup next Sunday (6 January). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 26. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 05:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using to all users in Victoria)

Jonathan Haidt Criticism[edit]

Why was legitimate criticism of some of his viewpoints removed? There were 2 primary sources and one secondary. The format wasn't much different from the criticism given by Sam Harris, don't see an issue. Ethanwashere (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Johann Hari[edit]

I have reverted your edit again [2] to The Post-American World. Not liking the reviewer is not a valid reason to remove the review. Has Newsweek retracted the article? Was there something flawed with that specific review? From the edit summary, your rationale seems to be that the reviewer did something bad and therefore all his work is now irrelevant. That is conveniently listed at List of fallacies#Red herring fallacies. maclean (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Err, the text you reintroduced makes hostile claims about a living person in Wikipedia's voice with the only source given being a self-confessed liar and plagiarist. DO NOT DO THAT! NEVER EVER DO THAT!
At this stage, I perhaps should give you a hint: make a sentence diagram of the bad text your bad edit put into the article.
Instead of reverting my edit, you could:
  • Insert something along the lines of "Johann Hari, writing before being exposed as a plagiarist and liar, said ..." without putting Hari's claims in Wikipedia's voice; or
  • Find a similar criticism of the book from someone who still has a reputation and report that criticism without putting any hostile claims in Wikipedia's voice; or
  • Let that article be less negative about Zakaria's book than it was.
BTW, I am not a great fan of Zakaria. I used to read, enjoy and admire Hari's columns. I was also one of the people trying to stop David r from meth productions (talk · contribs) (ie., Hari) inserting nasty lies into Wikipedia articles about living people. See also this [ANI discussion]. More importantly, read this column by one of Hari's victims to see why nothing Hari wrote can be trusted. (There will be a pop quiz on that column!) And arguing from Newsweek's silence is unconvincing, given that they were too busy trying (and failing) to stay in business at the time.
To summarize: yes, there is something wrong with that review. It was written by someone no encyclopedia should ever use as a source. CWC 09:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for responding with a more detailed explanation. However, the text in question does not make hostile claims about a living person in WP's voice. It has specific inline attribution to Hari and Newsweek The Progressive In a review published in The Progressive, Johann Hari took exception... and Hari pointed to examples... — which makes it clear it is Hari's opinion, not WP's, and is addressing the book and Zakaria's ideas, not Zakaria. Adding such commentary (like 'plagiarist and liar') about the reviewer is not neutral. WP:BLP also applies to Hari. I'm open to a neutral edit but I still want to use the source. I have requested a third opinion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Johann Hari If you don't mind, can we move these comments off your talkpage and onto Talk:The Post-American World#DIscussion re citing Johann Hari? —maclean (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal[edit]

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS

Nbound (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Gerard Henderson[edit]


Please do not insert your POV into the Henderson article or I will seek arbitration against you.

Warm regards (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi Chris

Just came across your posting in the wikipediocracy forum about GMO related articles, in a thread in which I was (negatively) mentioned. I've put a lot of work into GM-related articles to make them NPOV, and I have noticed that most of the anti-GMO crowd don't know squat about farming. Your post interested me, as I would love to see more farm-savvy people working on ag-related stuff. So please know that I would love it if you came and did some work. I also want to say that I don't agree with what you wrote in that post. My sense (and I would need to find RS to back this up) is that crops like soy and corn were genetically modified first because a) there was less risk of cross-pollination and b) (crudely stated) food made from them are not as central to the core concept of "food" as bread is and so there was less risk of popular backlash. In any case, the public reason why Monsanto abandoned its GM wheat project ~2004 was that farmers feared that they would lose export market share ( I have not seen any source that have said that there is no GM wheat because the wheat strains that were being modified were inferior, and I am curious where you get that from. Anyway, happy to talk more, if you like! Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in replying. (I've largely stopped editing Wikipedia these days.)
You are right about few Wikipedia editors knowing much about farming. (In fact, I suspect there are more PETA activists here than farm-savvy editors.) But I have had to cut way back on time spent editing here, so I won't be able to help ... sorry.
The info about conventional seed breeding beating GMO in grain crops comes from my younger brother, who died in 2011. He knew a fair bit about seed breeding (he grew certified clover seed for many years), and what he said fits in with everything else I know about grain varieties. But I don't have anything you can cite in a Wikipedia article.
One thing about Wikipediocracy is that regular readers quickly learn to recognize the biases of the regular posters. You actually did quite well in that exchange, IMO.
Best wishes, CWC 12:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks for replying, for the info, and for your kind words! I hear you about being too busy, real world, to edit. WIkipedia's loss! and i am sorry about the loss of your brother... terrible. Good luck to you in all things. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI - Adelaide meetup on Wednesday next week[edit]

Riverside Precinct Adelaide Meetup
Next: TBA
Last: 7 May 2015
This box: view  talk  edit

More info here. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries. It's rather hard to tell who is active and interested. Thanks for making it clear. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Chris Kenny (Journaist)[edit]

Can you please stop removing legitimate additions to the Chris Kenny article. They are not libellous, inaccurate or violate WP:BLP.

It is highly relevant that comments from Chris Kenny's own son be added as is the verifiable fact that his comments did cause controversy.

You clearly have a problem with following/understanding the WP:BLP guidelines so happy to take this to arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:19, 20 December 2014‎ (UTC)

@ Arbitration won't take the case up until there's been discussion at the article's talk page. I suggest you open discussion at Talk:Chris Kenny (journalist) to establish that there's consensus to include the material you're trying to add.
I also suggest finding secondary sources that talk about Kenny's son's column, rather than citing the column itself. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


Do you come to anymore? Thanks. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 06:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Visit? Yes. As well as reading/skimming dozens of Wikipedia articles per week, I also check my watchlist (now < 100 articles) 2 or 3 times a month. I occassionally do some substantial editing (for example, improving Tibor Rubin last December).
So I'm still slightly active ... cheers, CWC 08:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Remember [3]? The sock evasion is still on-going.(SPI) Would you check John Coleman (news weathercaster) back and its recent edits? OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 21:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Now that I've had a look, I do remember. Can't say I care that much, though. Wikipedia is full of attempts to disqualify-DISQUALIFY-DISQUALIFY conservatives, and it's only going to get worse. I'll save my limited time here for other articles, sorry. CWC 02:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

29th Melbourne Meetup[edit]

Hello, you have previously indicated that you would be interested in attending Melbourne meetups. A meetup will be held on Wednesday August 12, 2015 6-8pm. Please check out Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 29 for details and add your name to the list if you think you can attend. --Michael Billington (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


Hello, Chris, as much time as you have, I saw you liking my edit on David Drake. Thanks for this. :) Want to ask you if you know other science fiction, fantasy and historical fiction authors that need such seperation of their bibliographies? They are just getting out of proportion. Any help is appreciated.

Kindest regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)