User talk:DrChrissy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Cobweb (PSF).jpg
Redback back view.jpg

Contents

TTT

test

Thanks[edit]

Hi DrChrissy, just wanted to say thanks for your participation at the ref desks! A quick glance here shows you are also very active at improving WP mainspace, so thanks for that too. I keep meaning to do more for articles, but I usually only have the attention span to make minor grammar edits, and deal with higher level stuff as one-offs at the ref desk :) SemanticMantis (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks very much for the positive message. Your stuff at the ref desk is always very informative and well written - keep up the good work! I intend to start a shake up of the Cursorial article tomorrow - I might see you there. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for your edits on the cursorial thread at the ref desk. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No turkey celebration in your neck of the woods?[edit]

Here in the US we welcome every opportunity for a holiday!! If it were left up to our school children, they would transpose the number of school days with the number of holidays. DrChrissy, I sympathize with what you're going through with the waves battering against your shoreline. It's erosive, even against solid rock. Sometimes the behavior I've witnessed at the drama boards reminds me a little of the book, "Cannibalism, Ecology and Evolution Among Diverse Taxa" published by the Oxford University Press. Perhaps it has something to do with the book's description per the NYT "that when animals eat their own species they are not just looking for another meal but also seeking to destroy competitors", [1]. Granted, it's a rather extreme hyperbole, so I will AGF by saying that I can't imagine any editor who doesn't want to edit unencumbered or be shackled by mass confusion. I've also heard that when a storm moves inland, it dissipates so the best thing to do is just batten down the hatches and ride it out. Can you believe the holidays are upon us? Wow. Atsme📞📧 18:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, I just want to add that I can very much empathize with how stressful that AN discussion must be for you, and I want to offer you my sincere hopes that you can be of good cheer nonetheless. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Both. Yes, the ArbCom situation is EXTREMELY stressful - not least because it has been totally unexpected (perhaps naively) on my part. I'm currently being very guarded about my comments about the process because I really fear they may draw unintended attention to others who do not deserve this and my comments may also cause a backlash against me. I think the worst part is the absolute silence and the apparent lack of reading of our comments and questions. It really is...well...(please insert your own words!) But I will post something about my take on the process and findings when the dust has settled. As for Turkeys in my neck of the woods - I live in a rural area (Somerset) where shooting of game birds is a popular pastime for some. I don't eat turkeys (after having worked with them under modern production husbandry systems), so I might try pheasant this Christmas. Hope you have enjoyed your Thanksgiving celebrations. By the way - have you seen that Petrarchan appears to have retired? Very worrying.DrChrissy (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I've seen that, but I had best not comment. I also saw that Guy apologized to SageRad, which is something happier. Let me presume to say some things about the ArbCom case. The way it looks for you, it will likely have two effects. One is that you will not be able to edit about GMO plants or agricultural chemicals, two subject where I suspect you really do not have many interests. (I don't know what will happen at AN, but my gut feeling is that that topic ban will be lifted.) The other is that, in the unlikely event that Jytdog comes back, he will be forced to leave you alone. Interestingly, he will be forbidden to edit about GMO animals such as that salmon, whereas you will be free to edit there, and he won't be able to say anything about your editing there. If you look at it that way, then maybe it's not that bad, although I don't mean by that to minimize the stress of it in any way. And I think that I have already made it abundantly clear that I am less than impressed by the way those in charge have handled the GMO case. As for my Thanksgiving, "I can't believe I ate the whole thing" (a catch-phrase from a long-ago US TV ad for an antacid). Truly, I hope that you are able to remain cheerful and that the near future will allow you to put all the aggravation behind you. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I have just realised I misread your first posting. I thought you were talking about the ArbCom process, but you are talking about the AN process. Yes, I am also extremely frustrated about what is going on at AN. One thing I have found out about myself, and this has been with your help, is that when I am being goaded, I struggle to understand where the line is between defending myself and feeding the trolls. It is obvious that I am being goaded over there, but I have always had a strong sense of fairness, and what goes on over there is absolutely not fair. I have seriously considered withdrawing my appeal and walking away from wikipedia, but I will not do that. There is so much support for me over there that I would be letting down those people by withdrawing. I may, however, take a break from editing for a while. I just wish an Admin would step in and close it. The discussion is now not doing anybody any good - it is simply becoming another example of a rather dysfunctional process.DrChrissy (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I've had my own share of me replying many times during dispute resolution and later wishing that I had responded fewer times. It's a no-win situation, and a frustrating one. I, too, have been musing out loud on my user talk page about walking away, but I've been coming to the conclusion that what people here say about me reveals more about them than about me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes I saw your comments and I followed what went on leading to those with great sympathy for you. I would not have blamed you for walking away and I am very glad you did not. I'm rather lacking in motivation at the moment (for some reason!) but maybe we (and others of course) should try and turn this into a positive and ensure that these processes are looked at. One idea I had was to develop an ethics committee of paid members who are not associated with WP in any other way to look at these dispute processes. Just an idea.DrChrissy (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. (And User:Tryptofish/ACE2015.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree many threads on Wikipedia are frustrating and unproductive because they are controlled by editors who either do not read and consider arguments opposed to their own position, or who repeatedly project shadow aspects of their own behaviour onto other editors. Responding in a thoughtful manner is a complete waste of time. And because there's no impartial centralised decision body on Wikipedia, there is nothing that can be done about it. There's ArbCom of course, a rather politicized body that often manages to make things worse. I like your idea of an independent paid ethics board DrChrissy, though there remains the issue of how the members of that board would be selected and held to account. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
And, in what is probably the reason it will not happen, there also remains the issue of getting the community to buy into the idea. Any RfC about adopting it would look like the worst ANI thread imaginable. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Well yes, but you are talking about trying to change the system from within the system itself. That won't happen. But other external interests have a stake in open source information. Wikipedia is currently the world's premier repository of open source information. This information does not belong to Jimbo Wales and the maintenance workers. It was put there, for free, by the content builders. The global push for open source information is not going away, and it is a push that is bigger than Wikipedia. I would think many professional bodies will be looking for better treatment than Wikipedia currently offers their members when they try to contribute definitive open source information. If the Wikipedia administration in unable to to develop some sensitivity and respect towards content development then Wikipedia will lose status. If the janitors remain in control Wikipedia is going to be increasingly bypassed as a serious project. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I think DrChrissy's proposal has merit and might just fit the project if presented properly to the Foundation via the IdeaLab, [2]. What could it hurt if he/we at least presented his idea for consideration? Atsme📞📧 22:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Banners[edit]

DrChrissy, you found a page that I completely forgot about - User talk:Atsme/Banners. In fact, I created User:Atsme/Banners because I couldn't find the other one! 👀 Now I know where it is and will figure out some way to merge the two. Thank you! Atsme📞📧 16:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I found it only by following your links, so you might have a link there that you don't want/did not realise. I particularly liked the "blocks" one!DrChrissy (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

A little nonsequitur on Domesticated turkey...[edit]

Hi DrChrissy, I just wanted you to know that I'm not trying to actually remove that passage on the FAWC data. I just can't figure out what it's trying to say. As it stands, it's looks nonsequitur, is unclear, and looks like original analysis. I left (will leave) some details of what I mean on the talk page. DrAlso (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi DrChrissy, On the DT talk page I added a detailed analysis of the logic errors, innuendo, etc. in the first paragraph of the "Welfare Concerns" section. Would you like a crack at addressing it? DrAlso (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Has been addressed. By the way, it is generally considered very bad manners to ban someone from your talk page and then post to their talk page! Your message above is about article content and should have been posted to the article Talk page, not here.DrChrissy (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Anecdotal gar reports[edit]

See the link when you get a chance. It's one of the reasons I was reluctant in using the photo. [3] I'll do some further checking on Commons. Thanks in advance... Atsme📞📧 20:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I had a look yesterday and realised they were the same photos! The link has left me a little confused - are the images photoshopped?DrChrissy (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
They're probably legitimate snapshots but the concern is whether or not the ones uploaded to Commons were properly licensed by the actual copyright holder, or if they are unauthorized copies that were farmed off the internet. The images are currently on a sort of watchlist at Commons. Atsme📞📧 20:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that time of year....[edit]

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)
Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season.

What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water,

and it won't catch fire.
Wishing you a joyous holiday season...
...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

--Atsme📞📧 22:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Pure pun-ishment. [4]

Genetically modified organisms case closed[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.

2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.

7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.

11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case closed
I have commented on SageRad's Talk page, and feel the same way towards you. My best wishes, and please don't leave Wikipedia. We need you more than ever. Jusdafax 05:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Sorry to be so blunt - but Dennis made it clear that he wanted a break from all of this. Maybe look somewhere else? — Ched :  ?  01:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You deleted a polite posting of mine to another user's Talk Page! This is absolutely outrageous! How dare you! And I have just seen you are an Admin...words fail me! DrChrissy (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
...and you have just edited my Talk page again without my permission...DrChrissy (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I reverted my own comments which were ignored not responded to. I believe that is within policy. — Ched :  ?  14:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ched: May I hold out an olive branch to you. Looking at your Talk page, you seem to be a very genuine person, and I accept that you made the deletions to protect another editor. I still think that it is wrong to simply delete another editor's comments on a third party's Talk page, but I very likely over-reacted to your doing that. Regarding my not replying to your postings here, I was following advice (given rather ironically by Trypto) to not reply immediately to posts and to count to 10 before replying. I was still counting - I am a slow counter. So, I am hoping we can both put this episode behind us and move forward to both better the project.DrChrissy (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Let me just say that I've known Ched since very close to when I first started editing, and he's a fine guy and a nice person. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I was guessing that when you recently posted on your own Talk page. It was that posting which motivated me to calm down and offer the olive branch. I hope he accepts.DrChrissy (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
All good; I accept - and thank you. I really was sorry to be a source of stress during difficult times, and I honestly did not mean to upset you. I thought my repeated apology notes to your page might look like badgering to you, so I thought I'd remove them. Anyway - I do wish you the best. (and ty Trypto for the kind words.) — Ched :  ?  20:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for accepting. All is now well. And I extend our mutual thanks to our Poisson of Rocks - he deserves his tubifex worms today! DrChrissy (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If memory serves, Ched and I first crossed paths at an RfC at Talk:Urination, so DrChrissy, draw whatever conclusions you will. Face-smile.svg --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I keep a jar of freeze-dried tubifex worms for the fishes in my freshwater aquarium. I reconstitute them in a watery garlic extract, and they definitely like them. Saltwater fish, however, not so much. And me, well.... --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Careful[edit]

I just went through all of JzG's edits at the Seralini affair page, and there actually is no violation of 1RR, although it came close. Please don't comment on it any further, because that page is part of your topic ban, and any further comment about it is going to get you blocked. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish is right; any further "general" discussions about things that happen on pages you're topic banned from discussing will start resulting in blocks. I've closed the WP:AN thread. The same is going to happen if you speak with other editors about these pages in code (i.e. "that editor on that page" is not going to be an adequate defense). There are lots of people who are not topic banned who can address issues on these pages if they come up. I really suggest you remove these pages from your watchlist completely, as there is no benefit to you from seeing what happens on them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I really thought I was OK to discuss other editor's (potential) breaches of 1RR so long as I did not mention the page or topic I am banned from. It seemed to me to be a question related to another editor's behaviour, unrelated to the protection of that page. It appears I am wrong. Thank you.DrChrissy (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Floq is exactly right. I think you get it now, but out of friendly concern, I really want to make absolutely certain that you are clear about it. It's not OK to get involved with conduct disputes within the areas of your topic bans and your interaction ban. Even if there is bad behavior in the ban areas, you cannot utter a word about it, even if you are using crafty language, and even if it is only in user talk space. It applies both to content and to conduct discussions. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yup, I understand that now. I honestly did not appreciate that nuance of a topic ban, but I do now. Thanks as usual for the cool-headed mentoring.DrChrissy (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure, and I really hope that we both can soon get back to peaceful and worry-free editing. Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You might want to strike or remove that comment[edit]

Its likely that the comment on JzG's section violates the GMO topic ban you are under. You might want to strike/remove it. AlbinoFerret 18:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That's correct. An Arb just said so, very explicitly. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. Better to play safe. I have not seen the Arb's comment yet. DrChrissy (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Good, I'm glad, that was a close one. It's at the noticeboard talk page, where the Arb responded to Sage below your question. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
As a rule I would avoid commenting on noticeboards on the topic if I were in your shoes. There is an exemption in your case as pertains to animals. But odds are that any noticeboard section will involve more than that. AlbinoFerret 18:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks both of you.DrChrissy (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

And you definitely want to strike this [5]. That in no way, shape or form falls under the exemptions in BANEX. You're not asking for clarification or appealing the ban in the proper venue. Capeo (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:AE notification[edit]

I have opened a section on you at WP:AE regarding your recent violation of your topic ban. Please comment there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, the above AE request has been closed with a warning to you. Your post to User talk:SlimVirgin was not one of the exemptions to your topic ban permitted by WP:BANEX. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your handling of this. I note the warning and apologise to the community for breaching my exemptions.DrChrissy (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings[edit]

Santa-eop2.jpg
Seasons Greetings!
I've been hearing from the elves that you've been a little worried about how Santa's list is looking for you. They say he's almost done with his second check, and so far it looks like you've hardly been naughty at all! Thanks for the good work you do; you have brought joy into my work here.

I wish you and your family Seasons Greetings and a very Happy New Year Gandydancer (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

CMR Xmas greeting.jpg
Wishing you a Charlie Brown
Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
Best wishes for your Christmas
Is all you get from me
'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus
Don't own no Christmas tree.
But if wishes was health and money
I'd fill your buck-skin poke
Your doctor would go hungry
An' you never would be broke."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914.
Montanabw(talk)

Reference errors on 24 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

ARCA request archived[edit]

Just a note to let you know that your recent ARCA request has been archived.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Request to Jimbo Wales[edit]

Jimbo, I have posted below my appeal for a request to ArbCom to amend a decision of theirs. This has now been archived. As I indicated on your talk page, I believe this is a matter of principle in the way that Wikipedia operates, rather than just a single decision abut a single editor's behaviour. I have been topic banned from an area in which I have never edited. Despite my asking for evidence of such editing, none has been produced by any user or arbitrator. I feel it is a very dangerous precedent for ArbCom to ban editors from places they have not even edited, let alone disrupted.

Original email to ArbCom
I would like to request an amendment to my recently imposed topic ban.[6] I am requesting the amendment deletes the inclusion of "genetically modified plants and". I am requesting this amendment because there is a total absence of evidence that I have been disruptive in this topic area. I respectfully quote the WP:banning policy as "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia." (my highlighting). Below, I provide evidence that I have not been disruptive in this topic area, in fact, I have not made a single content edit about GM-plants in my history of editing WP.
I have reviewed all the submissions relating to myself presented during the evidence phase of the GMO case. There was not a single diff provided by any party which related to me editing or discussing GM-plants.
I have also reviewed all my edits for the year of 2015. This review showed that I have not made a single edit of article content relating to GM-plants. In the last 12 months, I have edited only two articles about GMOs which contain sections on GM-plants, i.e. Genetically modified food and Genetically modified organism.
I made a handful of edits (6) on the Genetically modified food article ([7]

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12]) but these were all unrelated to GM-plants.

I made 13 edits to Genetically modified organism. The vast majority of these related to animals and were often simple editorial changes such as typos, links, redundant words. I made one edit potentially tangentially related to GM-plants - I reformatted a reference title to be lowercase rather than uppercase.[13] I reverted only a single edit here[14] and although my revert was itself reverted, I did not engage in any behaviour that might be considered disruptive.
Prior to the GMO case, I was heavily involved in editing Glyphosate and I accept the ArbCom's decision to topic ban me from the area of agricultural chemicals as a remedy. However, I think there has been an inadvertent "topic-creep" which has led to the unnecessary inclusion of GM-plants in my ban. I have not been disruptive in the slightest in the topic area of GM-plants. My overall concern here is that some editors believe that because my topic ban includes plants, general GMO articles such as Genetically modified organism are included in my ban. I would be very grateful for a clarification by ArbCom that if this amendment is approved, my topic ban does not include these general GMO articles.
I respectfully await your decision on my request for an amendment.
All other editors please note, this thread is only for Jimmy Wales to comment - all other postings are highly likely to be deleted without comment by myself.
DrChrissy (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Just FYI, I do not agree with the decision either but editing the article for Genetically modified fish after the decision was made restricting you from the topic probably isn't going to help your cause. Also, going to Jimbo won't help either because he has never and will never override an Arbcom sanction. As much as I too wish he would on occasion do so, its not going to happen and his name really should be removed from the policy saying he has the authority to do it. Arbcom can pretty much do anything they want and there is no appealing it, changing it or revoking it without a significant amount of work, time and luck. Good luck all the same. Maj Turmoil (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Maj, the topic ban was intentionally crafted so that writing about GM animals is OK, so there is nothing wrong with DrC working on that page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Trypto - I was just writing a reply saying the same. I think Maj has perhaps understandably fallen into the trap of reading and believing the lies my detractors are repeatedly posting.DrChrissy (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah good to know thanks, I apologize. I hadn't read the whole thing through and didn't catch that. I simply assumed organism included animals. Maj Turmoil (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The arbcom's DS and 1RR apply to "organisms". My topic ban applies to "genetically modified plants". Could I suggest in the friendliest of ways that you strike your misunderstanding on both this page and on my Talk page. This shows to the community that you have understood a mistake was made. Best wishes.DrChrissy (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarificaiton request filed.[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Genetically_modified_organisms_2. Guy (Help!) 00:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, DrChrissy![edit]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

FYI[edit]

Some very good comments here and here. SageRad (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's only right...[edit]

...to let you know about the comment I left on the talk page of Emotion in animals. Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  01:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.DrChrissy (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for vexatious filing of a baseless AE complaint against an editor you are i-banned from interacting with, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Useful links:

--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Motion that pertains to you[edit]

Hi, this message is inform you that a motion pertaining to you has been proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Ant self-recognition[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, DrChrissy. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is "Ant self-recognition".
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Broadening of topic bans[edit]

@SageRad: I agree entirely with you regarding the broadening of topic bans. I too have just had my topic ban considerably extended.here This has been without any evidence provided at any stage of the case and its fall-out that my editing was problematic in this broadened area. How can this process of substantially extending topic bans simply ignore the process which which has been set up to be fair and to be seen to be fair (although this is arguable in itself). There are also 2 other aspects to consider. One is the change in Arbcom members during these topic ban broadenings. This is like changing the judges halfway through a case - surely in such a complex case a re-trial would be expected. The second aspect is a psychological one. New members of ArbCom are extremely unlikely in their first dealing to argue or vote against a previous ArbCom finding. Moreover, they would be very keen to prove themselves as being very decisive and keen to comment/vote - this can be seen in some of the comments put next to votes (a practice I believe is totally unnecessary and very often inflammatory.

There is something very, very deeply wrong at ArbCom.DrChrissy (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy, the whole thing of topic bans bothers me in principle. If an editor shows bad behavior in general, then how about banning the editor altogether? Otherwise let them be. I think that bad behavior needs to be addressed when it first happens and treated as a learning opportunity. Blocks for a few days are great to let an editor cool down and re-focus on how to approach a question better. But to let problems build up over months, and then to ban editors from a topic for a year minimum -- it's essentially a recipe for Inquisitions. It's a recipe for political purging. I've used the phrase McCarthyism several times for very good reason. The whole thing stinks like an ideological purging, and the whole basis is frankly, bullshit. Every editor in the whole topic area of agrochemicals and GMOs has made a few mistakes in judgment. Every editor has contributed good thoughts and edits, as well.
Anyway, on topic, yes of course, to expand the scope of a topic ban after the whole process is clearly wrong. It's no longer "clarification" but rather domain creep. So if i cannot edit about any chemical made by any company that makes even a single thing used in agriculture, then i wouldn't be able to edit about PTFE (teflon) or its related additives, or polystyrene (Styrofoam), or many many other chemicals that are present in the world. How is that ok? It would be a ridiculous limitation. It's not my fault that a single company makes many products. If people want to expand the scope of a topic ban, then they need to go through the same process that led to the original topic ban, with the new topic ban stated. This is not about clarification, but rather about expansion of the "win" by a group of people with a particular point of view. SageRad (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
And if the user has the temerity to try and use enforcement - slap them with a one-week block so that everyone is running round scared shitless to actually indicate when other users are actually breaking their bans/DS.DrChrissy (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@SageRad: for some reason I have found myself with a little extra time on my hands today so I thought I would try and get a broader perspective on people's opinions of Wikipedia and its process. I found this site wikipediocracy. It has some very interesting articles on there such as this and this. It also has some very humorous articles. If you have not been there before, I hope you enjoy it and find it enlightening.DrChrissy (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • DrChrissy, I think I have been on your side in various disputes in the past, so maybe you'll listen to a word or two from me. That latest block, that's not an ArbCom block--AE really is not an ArbCom venue. The interaction ban (I had no involvement in that case, as you know), I have no opinion on its merit, but it was imposed and you just have to live with it: your AE request clearly went past the boundaries set for such bans. Your fellow editor SageRad here is wrong on more than one count and is not giving good advice--if we (and that includes you--editors in general) ban everyone who is disruptive in one particular area, there would be hell to pay. Also, "cooling down" blocks don't work and are specifically discouraged, in part, I think, because they're patronizing.

    But I really just wanted to say one thing, having been familiar with you for a few years now: please stop digging. You're in a hole, stop digging. There is a way out of the hole, but this is not it. You can blame ArbCom all you want, but ArbCom does its work based on what evidence is presented. Getting in good graces with ArbCom is not really where it's at since ArbCom also responds to what the community has to say: it's community members you have to win for your case. You won't win Jytdog, it seems to me, but that latest AE case easily sways a more neutral observer away from your case. All the best, Drmies (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Drmies, thank you for your comments.DrChrissy (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms case modified[edit]

DrChrissy's topic ban which currently states that "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case modified

@I am One of Many: Thank you for your comment here.[16] It is always nice to receive compliments for the quality of one's content editing. Much appreciated.DrChrissy (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Bullying[edit]

@SageRad: Hi Sage, you might be interested in this thread[17] which started today. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

....and the thread was closed within 4 hrs - I think this speaks volumes!DrChrissy (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on how it speaks volumes? Note that discussion has continued on Biscuittin's talk page. He is not being ignored or stonewalled, it's just that no one believes his complaint has merit. A general discussion on how bullying should be dealt with is of course fair game, but Biscuittin went about it in completely the wrong way and I don't believe that is actually what he is trying to achieve.--Atlan (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
My message was intended as a one-to-one with SageRad and I don't think they need any further elaboration.DrChrissy (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright, fair enough. I was just curious.--Atlan (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grimace scale (animals), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Post hoc and CBA (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) 09:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hair whorls[edit]

Thanks for your edit on the noticeboard. I've been farming most of my life, and I've discovered that while some of the old wives' tales are nonsense, some are true. I don't know if there are any actual scientific studies on hair whorls, but I always heard that the location of the whorl on the head had to do with the formation of the animal's brain. (And where I live, the superstition is that a whorl in the middle of the forehead means a good horse, a whorl above the eyes means a high-strung horse, and a whorl far down on the face means a stupid one.) But temperaments have been selectively bred for, as anybody who's ever had animals knows (Great Pyrenees can be trusted with baby animals because they have been bred for guard work--Thoroughbreds are high-strung because they are bred to have a great drive to run, etc.) Some of it you have to learn through experience and can't get from reading stuff on the internet. And some theories sound good in print but do not work in reality. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hoping you are well[edit]

I'm unsure whether my posting here might be unwelcome, but I hope that it's OK. I just saw what you said at another page about your problems with diabetes and the risk that you might have to have amputations, and very truly, my heart went out to you. I feel very sad that you are going through such difficulties, and I hope that you will have a good recovery. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Trypto. Thanks for your obviously sincere and genuine concern. Diabetes is a terrible disease for many reasons. I would tell you more, however, I believe there are others out there who might actually use that against me as a violation of my topic ban. Yes, I actually believe that - what a sad state of affairs. Thanks again for your concern.DrChrissy (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

People don't often express appreciation for being prompted to re-read something. Having seen more of your comments, I believe you were being absolutely sincere. I'm both embarrassed and relieved to learn my interpretation was not correct, and I sincerely apologize for my misunderstanding. Burninthruthesky (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Burninthruthesky: Your apology is accepted - thank you.DrChrissy (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Intelligent Design[edit]

Your comment at RSN raised an interesting point: a search in The Blind Watchmaker brings up no examples of "intelligent design", but from my own copy Dawkins in his preface refers to "complex design", one of many terms for the teleological argument, on pages 4–6 he discusses William Paley's Natural Theology version of that argument.
Our intelligent design article briefly mentions theological predecessors of the term, and in a footnote gives example of 19th century use of the phrase when discussing God's works and "intelligent direction".
On the first amendment's influence, Timeline of intelligent design outlines the series of court cases which led to "scientific creationism" being rebranded as creation science. After teaching that in public school science classrooms was ruled unconstitutional by Edwards v. Aguillard, the term intelligent design was substituted, with the claim that this was a NASA phrase being used for a new science. Hope you find these clarifications helpful. . . dave souza, talk 10:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dave, thanks for the clarifications. Much appreciated.DrChrissy (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.  Bishonen | talk 19:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC).

Re: "I think we are now all warned"; no, that doesn't count, but now you're warned. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Oh. I must say I am rather surprised to receive this template individually. Am I editing in a way that violates or is danger of violating DS?DrChrissy (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
As you can see, it doesn't imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. But the reason I posted it to you in particular was my concern about your tone in the ANI discussion. I make no pretense of following the Parapsychology talkpage, but catching sight of the exchange on ANI, I was in fact concerned about some frivolous and unhelpful, even evasive, posts: [18][19][20][21]. Also this: how are the other users supposed to know of your foot problems? Have you informed them about your health issues? Do you really think the person who said "out for a stroll", and the person who supported his remark, were personally attacking you? I see that you (sort of) withdrew your complaint when you were challenged about it, but saying it at all was ridiculous, however much I sympathize with your medical issues (I have diabetes too). Please don't throw around personal attack accusations frivolously. And I have to agree with BMK that this is playing silly games. Etc. Since you ask.
I rather expect you to come back with a "what about them?" argument, and with some justification too; please feel free to post the same DS alert on other people in the discussion. You simply post this template {{subst:alert|ps}} and sign it. (First check the page history to see they haven't already received it in the past year.) Bishonen | talk 21:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC).
Well "what about them?" is the obvious question, however, I will ask this only rhetorically. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to post the template to the noticeboard in question for all editors, but of course where you post is your business.DrChrissy (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Not really my business, no. This is a very bureaucratic part of Wikipedia; where I post is the business of the rule that says it's a user talkpage template; it may only be posted on individual user talkpages. If it is, it has the effect of making the user undeniably aware, and then they can be sanctioned per DS if necessary. If I were to post it on a noticeboard, nobody can be shown to have read it, and nobody can be sanctioned per DS. That's how it works. Arbcom's rules. Note that anybody can post the template, it doesn't have to be an admin. Bishonen | talk 23:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC).
Oh right. Thanks for the clarification.DrChrissy (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Veganism edits[edit]

I saw that you had reverted my last edit of the above page, also saying i had deleted a load of posts on the talk page. I was glad to hear the last point, because I didn't think I had - I was editing only the article itself. I ddi delete some code which might have had that effect on the talk page. If so, I regret that as I believe previous discussions on talk pages should only ever be edited by the person who made them, or with their permission. Perhaps you can tell me or point me to info which will prevent me doing this again? As a separate issue I think my reversion to exclude commodity status was correct, as the extensive discussion is going round in circles with no end in sight. This to me shows it is a dubious phrase to use in this context. Any comments welcome, thanks in advance. TonyClarke (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I have commented and apologised at the Veganism Talk page - sorry for any inconvenience.DrChrissy (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Bile bear[edit]

Hi there,

Leaving this message for you as I think this is something in your wheelhouse. I stumbled across the article for bile bear tonight and was unpleasantly surprised to find that, first off and most glaringly, the lead mentions nothing at all about animal welfare, [lack of] medicinal efficacy, and other sub-topics that would, I imagine, constitute a good portion of decent sources. It also had several odd bits of fluff (for example, the section ostensibly on farmed bear statistics started with an unsourced paragraph about an initiative to release some bears) and a whole lot of unsourced or poorly sourced content. I removed some things and tagged it, but it's late and I don't see myself having time to do any serious review of this in the near future. My hope is that it's something you may want to take a look at. I may also post to WikiProject Animal Welfare, although I don't know how active that WikiProject is...

Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this - I will take a look.DrChrissy (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks again for all your work to this article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Your comment ...[edit]

welcome on Talk:Chicken#Claim_of_holocene_domestication_... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, did you get a chance to look at my post? You don't have to put the traditional poultry science view in there, but in light of the various objections to the PNAS paper, it shouldn't be highlighted in the fashion that it currently is. Better to say something general, such as: Genetic studies point to multiple maternal origins in Southeast Asia, China, and South Asia, with the South Asian clade the predominant progenitor of chickens found in Africa, Europe and the Americas." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
In the absence of any response from you I have now changed the sentence about genetic studies in the lead of Chicken to a more general statement that I believe reflects the current consensus among investigators; see my post on talk:chicken. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in getting to this. Your recent edits on Chicken look fine. Happy editing.DrChrissy (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

If you want to revert back you will need to undo another edit. You just removed my notice that I fixed the table. To revert the table back you will need to undo this edit. -- GB fan 19:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi GB fan. Thanks very much for this. Extremely helpful.DrChrissy (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

RE: Closure of AN/I Discussion[edit]

The consensus is that you don't have a leg to stand on. If you actually took the time to read what folks have been telling you, you'd see that you have little to no chance of getting what you want, and the longer it dragged on, the more likely you would have received a block. I did you a favor. Now don't bother me about this again. Drop the stick. --Tarage (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Noted.DrChrissy (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tarage: Please could you confirm that you have banned me from your talk page - I have never seen it expressed as an edit summary before.DrChrissy (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Do not ping me again. --Tarage (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Requiem?[edit]

Dear DrChrissy, is this your twilight time on Wikipedia? It pisses me off. I've enjoyed collaborating with you on some significant articles on Wikipedia where you and I, and only you and I, maintain standards. If you are going to persist in that most quixotic activity on Wikipedia – questing for justice, rationality, decency... whatever... on such unlikely venues as odious drama boards and surreal "arbcom deliberation" pages, then the outcome is simple. They will do what they always do and run a sword through you (siteban you). It sounds like you are running your health down also. If I could command and control you, I would direct you stop dead in the water right now, radically reassess and learn buddhist meditation. But since I can't control you, should I prepare a requiem for you? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Epi. Hopefully your proposed preparations are not needed now and won't be in the future. Thanks for your concern about my mental and physical health - but please don't worry too much. As you are aware, over the last 12 months or so on WP, I have been followed and abused, lied about, taunted, provoked, etc. I have now tired of this and along with a growing swell of decent-minded editors with integrity, I am discussing various aspects of editor's/admins mis-behaviour and how this should be dealt with. I will not sink to their tactics so I should avoid the sword, however, especially after the ArbCom case, I realise these things do not always go as expected. I will be careful. I have not given up on content editing completely - I have been updating the Bile bear article and just created Category:Electroreceptive animals amongst others. Once again, thanks for your concern. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I too wish you only happy music. I just saw your question at AE, and I figured I could answer it here, because I do know the answer. You are free to post about it in terms of your own restrictions, just as SageRad is free to post about it in terms of his. But you must not post about it in terms of anyone else, so Sage should not post in an AE section about you (hypothetically), and you should not post in the section about him unless you have a question about how it applies to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation - that makes it much clearer. These topic bans are so problematic. Whilst there are many who feel they are a clear line, they are not. I don't think it is fully possible to understand the difficulties of trying to stay as as a productive editor unless you have experienced living under one. There is currently discussion about whether admins should be voted upon or not. I wonder whether a prerequisite of becoming an admin should be living under a topic ban (in their favourite editing area) for one month. This would give them a sense of how easy it is to stray into areas which others perceive as a violation.DrChrissy (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
And as if by magic, an editor who has not edited the page since 2008, suddenly arrives at Bile bear and makes edits that leave it an absolute minefield for me to edit because of a topic ban they were significantly involved in being imposed on me.DrChrissy (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Your comment[edit]

That's news to me. I've been doing it for over two years, I often see others do it, and yours is the first hint that it's "frowned upon". It's useful information about the nature of my edit. Can you say why it's frowned upon? ―Mandruss  17:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss. I'm glad that in my post I said "I think.."! I can't find where I read it is frowned upon - if I ever did! I apologise for any inconvenience and I will go back to the article and strike my comment.DrChrissy (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. ―Mandruss  18:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit revert at Cheetah[edit]

Hi! I saw that you reverted my edit in Cheetah with good faith. Thanks for your vigilance. Actually I am in the course of improving the article, and trying as much as possible to keep the article ready for readers any moment. Not all can be worked out in my sandbox. I assure you that I will try to make it look better even whilst I am working on it. Presently I am re-adding info from the old revision, but that will be tomorrow, late here. Thanks again. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 18:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf: Hi Sainsf. You can always leave "Work in progress" in the edit summary and that will stop editors like me jumping in before you have finished. With an established article such as Cheetah, it is sometimes better to discuss large changes at the Talk page before making the changes. You can also advertise your sandbox and changes can be agreed there before moving to the article. Happy editing. DrChrissy (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I will add "work in progress" from now on; large changes are not really involved, and I will keep the article readable. Thanks again. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 03:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissy. FYI I will be away from now, returning only for the GA Cup and a few other simpler articles. Please look at the changes I have made to this article, I believe I have not left loose strands this time. I will return to working on this after a few months. Thank you. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 16:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the notification. I'll have a look, and of course other editors are welcome to make their own input. All the best.DrChrissy (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

IP addresses[edit]

IP addresses are not "registered". IPv6 addresses are substantially more dynamic than IPv4 addresses. You have to look at subnet masks, usually at least the /64. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I have asked you not to post to my Talk page. Please respect this.DrChrissy (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Just so we can be crystal clear on this, you are now banned from my Talk page.DrChrissy (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Cheetah (1)[edit]

Thanks for your edits, but I would like to know what exactly you did to the introduction of "Ecology and behaviour", where they discuss territories. I am on vacation from this but I managed to drop by and add some stuff. You see, I tried to keep as much as I could of the original material, it was good but unsourced. I had to remove a few points but I have a lot of literature to look in, so if it were true I could re-add it. Presently the section shows a lot of redundancy as both the previous material as well as my edits are there. The subheadings look wrongly placed, too. Should I contact editors at the article talk page? But whom should I contact? And the issue as far as I can see is the expansion; I am taking care not to delete anything unduly (don't know what happened to "Vocalizations", it was deleted by mistake I am afraid). I will resume editing when we reach a consensus and, of course, if I am free. I love this article, and wish to take this to FA status through collaboration if others wish to help here. If I have done something wrong, please tell me and I will rectify my error. Thank you. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf: This discussion is about the content of the article. This means the discussion is better at the Talk page of the article as there will be more interested editors over there rather than here. So, let's take the discussion there.DrChrissy (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

rewriting[edit]

It feels a little odd for me to be giving advice to someone who is probably a better and more experienced writer than I am, but one of the aspects I have the most experience with by now is revising WP articles. The most difficult thing to do is in revising is to deal with duplication; either when one finds existing duplication or when one feels it necessary to put new material what would duplicate material that is already less well stated in another place in an article. When people are trying to make a case for something, they often fall into the pattern of saying some of the key points several times in several places. I know I tend to do that when I am deliberately advocating for something, and I assume I do it also when I fell about something strongly even if I do not at the time recognize it. I think some of it is that one cares very much and wants to make sure one has said it, and also that one takes what will have an emotional impact and -- in addition to putting it wherever it really logically belongs-- one puts it both in the beginning to set the expectations, and then again at the end to leave the intended impression.

Further, when people are deliberately or unconsciously advocating, They also tend to bring in fully sufficient background to make sure the reader is seeing the actual subject in what they think is the proper overall context. This may be necessary in stand-alone writing, but it isn't in a collected work like this, where the related information is given by linking. A further technique that is easy to do in works like this is to use illustrations, and especially multiple similar illustrations, which will leave more of an emotional than an informative purpose. The art of doing conceal advocacy consists doing these things without making the advocacy obvious by actually stating what the reader is intended to conclude. I see all three of these in the article on Pain in crustaceans --I turned to that one of your examples first, because it is also a topic where I have myself strong feelings that are the same as yours-- and I looked at Bile Bear for similar reasons. I have no idea if they were deliberate or unconscious. I'm not going to deal further with this or the other articles; I generally avoid working on articles where I have strong feelings just as I avoid persistently working on any article where I encounter strong opposition. I'm not really bother by encountering this sort of writing when I oppose the implied or explicit viewpoint--I expect it from my ideological opponents. I'm much more concerned with it when I actually agree. I feel I owe it to you to expand on my comment at ANI, where I wanted to avoid detail. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and apologies for taking so long to reply - I have been rather busy elsewhere as you probably know.
Am I correct in thinking that you have concerns about the background section of Pain in crustaceans? If so, I am in some agreement with you. This is largely (perhaps entirely) based on the background of Pain in fish. This was developed along with highly experienced editors. At the time I felt this was a little "general", but I deferred to others editing the fish article. Transferring this to the crustaceans page is perhaps a "generalisation" too far. I tend to edit so that articles are pretty much stand-alone. Perhaps I have taken this too far with te crustaceans article. This could be remedied by editing the Pain in animals article with the background material, and then sticking to specifics for fish, crustaceans, amphibians etc. Are these the concerns you have? DrChrissy (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

/* Thailand Siamese Cat */ (This is not a Siamese cat it is a Birman Seal point)[edit]

I did not add the section itself i just corrected an obvious error!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apfan (talkcontribs) 20:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I saw that. Your correction led me to read that part of the article and then delete it. I do not hold you responsible for introducing the section - I did not even look at the history to find out who did. Happy editing. DrChrissy (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Anecdotal reports[edit]

Hi, DrChrissy - the reason Alligator gar specifically stated "anecdotal reports" and anecdotal evidence in scientific reports is because that's exactly what they are - anecdotal, no scientific proof, word of mouth, supposition - in other words, there are no "official reports" and no scientific evidence to confirm or deny the claim; therefore, it's still considered "anecdotal". We cannot say anything in WP voice that is not official or verifiable, especially when the cited sources use the words claim, or "it has been reported", or refer to it as "anecdotal evidence". I know you were trying to be helpful but I don't think it's accurate to say in WP voice that they can grow to be 10 ft. The verifiable facts tell us that they get heavier not longer after they reach a certain size (under 10 ft.) - refer to the official records which verify the largest alligator gar ever caught and recorded was about 8-1/2 ft. long. Following are some official verifiable reports that support what I'm saying is accurate about how their weight increases rather than their length, [22], [23], [24]. I went ahead and put the information back the way it was when it passed the GA review. Thanks for giving me another opportunity to research and check for verifiable information that would justify the removal of anecdotal. I simply don't believe we're there, yet. Atsme📞📧 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see. I had not realised there was such a relationship between length and weight, i.e. they get heavier but not longer (it would be worth introducing this into the text if you have an RS - does this relationship have a name?). I was mainly going on the fact that the reports were from a reputable museum. Presumably these reports had been checked, at which point, I would say that usually it is no longer anecdotal...but I can see why you might be wanting an even higher level of verification. Keep up the good work. DrChrissy (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I feel a little better to learn that I'm not the only one who is getting heavier without getting longer! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I started about the age of 37! DrChrissy (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I turned 60 a couple of weeks ago, so I can hardly remember back that far! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

AN/I[edit]

No problem. I do hope your topic ban gets lifted - it most certainly does look as if it will happen. Regards, --Ches (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheetah (2)[edit]

Hi friend! I am sorry if I am being impatient, but it looks like it is only you, me and Mcelite who are discussing the changes made to the article. I feel you are busy in other things at the moment, and even Mcelite is not available. As our discussions are progressing slowly, I can not work on the article. I assure you that I will make changes carefully and according to the standards followed in Tiger and Lion. Please do not revert the changes made by me before seeking an explanation from me; I carefully add appropriate info along with credible sources. Details like the arrangement of sections, renaming them can be taken care of at the Good Article review stage, we need not worry about this too much now. I have experience having worked on several articles in the past. Please allow me to continue with the article. Thanks. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 18:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Please go ahead and make your edits. The normal way of progressing is to discuss large, or controversial changes, at the Talk page before making the edit. I do not own the page, and I have not prevented you from making edits, so please do go ahead. Reverting changes is also a normal part of the editing process. Please do not take these personally. Have you read WP:BRD - this may help you understand. DrChrissy (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand the policy, and did not take all this personally at all. Perhaps I am not used to reverts, but I must learn a lot more. Please do not misunderstand me, you are a responsible editor! Let me inform you that I will be working on the Ecology and behaviour section, and some rearrangements and renaming are on the way. I will ping you to take a look at the section when it is ready, it is really a mess just now! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 18:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

About the revert, I could not get why you reverted it. You see, I am working on the full text of the section and the subsections are really troublesome in the meantime. Please understand. I believe the Ecology section will be done by tomorrow. Please don't revert Speed as well! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 19:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I'm sorry to have reverted, but you made a massive! edit containing many problems. These included mixed use of "%" and "percent", mixed citing formats and changing of established and non-controversial headings. I suggest you edit the text sticking to one sub-section at a time, e.g. work on "Reproduction" until you are happy with this and then save.. This makes it easier for editors and readers to understand your changes, and for us to discuss these on the Talk page if necessary. Furthermore, by working on one subsection at a time, you can "finish" this quicker without needing to leave "work in progress". I really hope this helps. DrChrissy (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Alright, please do not feel offended. This is a new situation for me, but I will try to work within subsections. Sorry for my silly errors. I will try to work within them, but can they be removed after the whole section is done? It looks a bit ugly to have short subsections. I will update on this tomorrow, once I am done with the whole job. Sorry again! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 19:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, I am not offended at all. Yes, those errors can be corrected, the problem is that when you save a massive edit like that last one, it becomes much more difficult to see where these have been made, and much more work to correct them. It also means that we can not advise you about them so that you can avoid making them in the future. DrChrissy (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure, won't be repeated. I was asking about the subsections - are they temporary? Or must they be there? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 19:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
That is not my decision to make. I like them that way, but you clearly do not. We appear to need other editor's views here. Perhaps you might like to raise the question on the Talk page, with an indication of how you might combine the sections. Sorry, but this can be a slow process. There is no need to rush - the article is not going away. DrChrissy (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure. I think we can leave them as they are till the article is done. Thanks a ton for all your help! I learned a lot. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 20:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zoopharmacognosy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Woolly bear (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) 11:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Balut[edit]

Thanks for cleaning up that article, and apologies if I edit-conflicted with you at some point. If you get fed up with it, ping me and I can finish up. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, no problem at all. It's bloody irritating when it happens, but that has nothing to do with you at all. Please carry on - I would not want to stifle any motivation to edit. All the best DrChrissy (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are several articles needing help, so I'm busy for a while. Thanks -- Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheetah[edit]

Hi. I have completed work on most of the article, except the lead, status and threats, and conservation sections. You may like to check the improvements. I will complete my work on the article in the next few weeks and nominate this at the GAN. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Food and drink prohibitions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balut (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) 10:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Categorisation[edit]

The Wikipedia categorisation system is hierarchical. If an article is in the category "Animals in China" it should not also be in the category "Animals". because "Animals in China" is included in the category "Animals". Otherwise the top categories become unmanageably big. The point of categories is to help users find articles they might not know exist. They need to be fairly small, ideally to fit on a page, so they can easily be scanned. I suggest you read WP:SUBCAT. Rathfelder (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

So why would you remove the category "animal welfare" from Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986‎? DrChrissy (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Because it belongs in Category:Animal rights and welfare legislation in the United Kingdom which is a sub-sub-category of category:Animal welfare and rights by country, which is a subcategory of Category:Animal welfare. Rathfelder (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks for the explanation. DrChrissy (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

i am hungry for anti vandalism barnstar[edit]

please come to my talk page to make it full

coyote entry[edit]

Hey Dr. Chrissy,

Just wanted to thank you for resolving the dispute over the usage of "nuclear family" with regards to the Wikipage on the coyote. I have from time to time made revisions on Wikipedia, many times to only see those revisions get changed. I thought in this particular case that my logic was sound, why Massone enjoys the use of this term in this instance baffles me, especially when one looks at the Wikipage on nuclear family!!

Can coyotes be married?!! LOL.

Sincerely, AA Pilot

No problem. Glad to be of help. In answer to your question, coyotes can NOT be married because they have no fingers to put the ring on.  ;-) DrChrissy (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheetah article[edit]

I see you keep an eye on the cheetah article. A user, Sainsf, made a large number of edits a few weeks back, and I am less than impressed with them. I don't think the prose is particularly great, but the real gripe is that his modifications have completed mangled some of the sourcing and introduced outdated sources with regards to top speed and the like. Would you back me up if I reverted everything he has done and re-added it more carefully? I'm sure some of it must be useful. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Yes I would. I am sure Sainsf means well and is willing to communicate, but has gone at the article like a bull in a china shop. I have warned them on 2 occasions, I think, to take things more slowly and that contentious changes should go to the talk page, but these seem to have been partly ignored. They are actually trying to get Cheetah to GA or FA standard. I think a complete reversion and then slow introductions with several eyes on these would be the best approach. DrChrissy (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@BowlAndSpoon: I am sorry if I have done anything wrong and have been too fast, please let me know what needs to be fixed. Should we go to the GOCE? A few of us did discuss changes at the talk page, but I am afraid I was too impatient to see the article improved. I have nominated it at the GAN, but I am sure we can fix these issues and the nomination need not be withdrawn. I do not have plans for its FAC at least in the next few months. I am not sure if a complete reversion would be a good idea as it took me a lot of efforts to assemble all the info. All I did was in good faith, please let me know my flaws. Sorry again. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism at Leopard[edit]

A lot of vandalism by IPs has been going on here, I and others are tired of reverting these edits. I see you are an administrator, could you guide me on what can be done here? Thanks, Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

First, I'm afraid I'm not an administrator. However, you/I can apply to get the page protected. The vandalism has been done by several IP's, but is probably the same person. It seems to have settled down now. Perhaps they have gone to bed or they are away from their computer, whichever, I suggest we leave it for a few hours and see if it starts again. The best way to initially deal with this is simply undo the vandalism. Don't leave any edit summary that lets them know you are irritated - "dont feed the trolls". DrChrissy (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you were one. Alright, I will wait. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 14:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Back to ANI[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#DrChrissy_.28yet_again.29

I assume you are familiar with the drill.

jps (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Walk away[edit]

You are being baited as was I. Just walk away and let an admin deal with it. Once you make your points attempting to rebut every allegation that is created will only frustrate you and create a wall of text no admin will wade through. Let the major points on both sides be clear and clearly seen; let the rest fall back into the shadows where they belong.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

Illegitimi non carborundum --Aspro (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks both for the advice - much appreciated. DrChrissy (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Dog[edit]

"Wolves kill dogs wherever the two canids occur." Just because one authority says this, that does not make it a generalization across the English-speaking Wikipedia. Other writers disagree. Regards, William Harristalk • 20:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

William, first, this discussion is about the content within an article and therefore should really be raised at the article's Talk page where it will get more eyes from interested editors. The main reason I deleted that part of the sentence was use of the word "authority". It sounds very grand, but it is unnecessary. Is it a reliable source - if it is, that is enough. If you know of other sources which disagree with this one, please edit the article to indicate this and gain a balanced article. DrChrissy (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
My concern is not the quality of citation or the content, it is your generalization of what just one person wrote. Better balanced view now expressed. William Harristalk • 09:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand why you have raised this thread! Why did you not just make those changes in the first place rather than coming to my Talk page. DrChrissy (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ant self recognition[edit]

Hello, I cannot see your arguments for deleting the Ant section on Mirror Test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.244.180 (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a principle on wikipedia that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. It is also much preferred that we use secondary sources rather than primary. I think it is fair to say that the claim ants can recognise themselves in mirrors is extraordinary. However, the source is in a predatory journal - i.e. the authors might have paid to publish the paper, and it is a primary source. If we could find a reliable secondary source, I would be happy to reintroduce the content. DrChrissy (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the removal of the material, but I'd like to point out that the fact that authors pay a fee does not make a journal predatory. It is standard in open access journals, and even in many highly reputable closed access journals, for authors to pay a publication fee. What makes a journal predatory is false statements about review and impact. Looie496 (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for that clarification. I think the IP should read our Predatory open access publishing article. That is a much fuller account of the risk of using these journal as sources. DrChrissy (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your work[edit]

Hi Dr Chrissy, thank you for helping improve the animal welfare page in the UK. I personally don't know a great deal about specific UK animal welfare issues (not from the UK), only from what I've picked up from reading online UK papers. I'm sure some local UK editors will build up the page.

The animal welfare proposals section has just one source at the moment (the Ulster Unionist party), which is only because I happened upon that information while I was researching online articles to do with animal cruelty sentencing laws around the UK - and I thought "aha", a "proposals" section would be a good growth section to get people thinking about the possibilities regarding animal welfare. Anticla rutila (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

This made me laugh[edit]

This reminded me of what happened here a few weeks ago! If you haven't seen it yet, hope you enjoy. :-) --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that! Hilarious! I've heard the game on the radio many times and thought it was very funny, but I've never watched it before and never heard our beloved Rachel on it. Thanks - cheered my day up immensely!
No problem! :-) --Ches (talk) (contribs) 08:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: DYK/Organized Horse Fighting[edit]

I've appended some additional comments. Just a minor mix-up that needs fixing, and it should be ready to go. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pain in crustaceans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaerobic (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) 10:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding reversions on Human Penis page[edit]

Hi DrChrissy,

Just had a quick question regarding your revision of the content added yesterday to the Human Penis page by @123hs:. Was the revision due to our use of American English or was it also the content we had added/edited? Just wanted to see if it would be possible to put the content additions back in if we make sure we use the American English or whether there was a problem with the content?

Thank you in advance! JS.Chester (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Because this is a content issue, I will answer over at the Talk page. See you there. DrChrissy (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry DrChrissy, but following on from the Quackery discussion below, at WP:RESTRICT your Tban is logged as "from human health and medicine, and WP:MEDRS related discussions, broadly construed." It seems like your recent involvement at the article mentioned in this section would very easily be seen as falling under this, probably best to disengage there as well. Thanks... Zad68 16:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Human penis is about human anatomy. DrChrissy (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Anatomy is clearly a branch of medicine, I'd be very surprised to find an uninvolved admin wouldn't think it falls under "human medicine... broadly construed". Please disengage there. Zad68 17:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
... which is an aspect of human health, "broadly construed", I'd have thought. Blimey you do like tweaking the lion's tail. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Our own Medicine article states - "Medicine... is the science and practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease." Next you will be suggesting I should not be editing articles such as Beard, Hair or earlobe. DrChrissy (talk)
I think it's pretty clear this page falls under "human medicine, broadly construed." You've heard my concern, now use your own best judgment. If you're going to continue on at that topic I (or someone else) will open a discussion at an appropriate noticeboard. Zad68 17:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I will not be bullied away from this page or any other human anatomy pages. If you, or any other editor, decide to make such a clearly erroneous claim at a noticeboard, be prepared for an immediate boomerang for wasting the communities time. You have been warned about this. DrChrissy (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, let's get some clarity before it becomes an issue, I have opened at thread at ANI here. Zad68 18:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't see it there. DrChrissy (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
It got removed accidentally in someone else's edit conflict, restored now. Zad68 18:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Quackery[edit]

Aren't you topic-banned wrt human health? Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is actually human medicine, but I have struck my comments as I am not trying to find the limits of my TBan. DrChrissy (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Crikey, well then editing quackery wouldn't be so much testing the limits and parachuting into to the centre wearing a fluorescent mankini and singing Oops!... I Did It Again through a megaphone ... ! Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Aposematism[edit]

Hi, I saw your addition to this article. Actually, the "borrowed" material may suggest a warning function but does not provide proof of it. The existing text carefully steers a course through the rather thin evidence; the new material basically doubles the length of the section without adding very much in the way of evidence. I'd be minded to cut it, unless you know something about it that I don't, i.e. a whole lot more sources describing experimental observations! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Just looking into it - yes, I realise I have added evidence about the mechanism, rather than the effect. Thanks. DrChrissy (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I found several RS and introduced these into the article. I have taken the talk over there because it is a content matter. DrChrissy (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Theory of mind in animals[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Theory of mind in animals at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

CCI Notice[edit]

Hello, DrChrissy. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Retirement[edit]

I saw that you have indicated on your user page your retirement from editing, and I was saddened to see that. I know that you have sometimes not seen eye to eye with me on some issues, but I hope that you will accept my saying this as being said very sincerely. Yes, dealing with people on Wikipedia can be quite trying. And it can be a very positive move to just take a good long break and clear one's mind. But I sincerely do hope that you will eventually come back, at some time when it feels right for you. My best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

  • If you want assistance with the close paraphrasing issues (they need addressing!) then I'm happy to help with the rewriting. If you have decided to retire, I endorse what Tryptofish says above and look forward to you eventually returning if it feels right. There are hardly any animal content builders left. Most have been driven off by the people who are here to make life difficult for content builders, and we can't afford to lose you. Best regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:@Epipelagic: Hi Both. Thank you for these kind comments. After a shortish break, I now feel the desire to come out of retirement. I am still very unhappy about the CCI request hanging over my head, especially because it looks like things move very slowly over there, but I guess I will have to live with that for the moment. Thanks both for your encouragement to return - it means a lot to me. @Epi, I remember you asking an editor (who shall remain nameless) whether they used software for monitoring close paraphrasing. Do you know if/where this is available so I can scan my own work? I have used on-line plaigerism checkers in the past, but these are not sensitive to paraphrasing. (I had the bad experience once of doing some paid web writing for a veterinary firm. I wanted to say "The main symptoms of the disease are X, Y and Z". The firm refused to pay me, saying the article was not totally original because other sites had previously published all possible combinations and permutations of X, Y and Z!) DrChrissy (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing[edit]

Face-smile.svg Welcome back, and it's good to see you! (For some reason, the ping didn't work, but I still watch here anyway.) About the question you asked Epi, I believe DocJames does a lot with that, and I seem to remember that Turnitin is the commonest software. As it happens, last year I and several other editors asked the WMF software developers to develop a tool that editors here could use within the editing interface, and I know that they are developing it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, the problem with the pings is that you should not put "user:" inside the template. So: {{Ping|Epipelagic}} gives @Epipelagic:. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the "welcome back" and thanks for the other information too - very much appreciated. It will be interesting to see what software they develop. In all my years of scientific writing I have never once worried about plagiarism or copyright violation because I have always been extremely careful about attribution. I have also done that on WP, but it appears this is interpreted differently here. DrChrissy (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
About the WMF software stuff, you can find links to it at meta:User talk:Tryptofish#Plagiarism detection. The material is too technical and wonky for me, but that's where to find it if you are interested. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Plagiarism has been handled foolishly on Wikipedia (though there are exceptions such as the sterling work by User:Moonriddengirl). It tends to alternate between ignoring the issue and overbearing hysteria. Editors are attacked by claiming they are "plagiarizing" if they stick to a source and indulging in "original research" if they write in their own words. A few years ago a medical editor generated huge paranoia about plagiarism, reprehensibly blurring the distinction between plagiarism and copy violations, and even claiming that only articles written by her and a friend of hers passed muster. She almost ran DYK into the ground by running down everyone who contributed there. Many editors including myself stopped bothering to contribute DYKs. A partial solution is the availability of appropriate software. The foundation seems incapable of providing anything beyond rudimentary software solutions. There are similar problems with the primitive Wikipedia templates. I once wasted a lot of time trying to get sense in that area, with no flicker of intelligent response. The only copy software that Wikipedia seems to provide is Duplication Detector, a primitive program that examines just one source at a time and merely lists matching strings. That's all we've got. Still, it's better than nothing.
Please take your close paraphrasing issues seriously. You always acknowledge your source and I don't see you have ever plagiarized. However, you do paraphrase too closely, and some rewriting is necessary. We went over that issue a lot earlier, and it really needs clearing up now. Once Wikipedia brown noses dig in, they will demand more careful rewriting than any academic journal does. You can use Duplication Detector to go through sources one at a time, rewording matched phrases where practical. Then rearrange sentence orders so they don't align too closely with the source. Tedious, but the more you do it the faster it gets. I will do some with you if you want.
I don't really care about Wikipedia any more. I don't know why you have a gif of the Wikipedia founder on your user page. That man does not have the interests of content builders at heart. He doesn't care either, only about his standing with social networkers. Wikipedia teaches you to not care, starting with the indifference of the founder to issues that matter, and his hostility to content builders who do (did) care. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for these words Epi. I have obviously been thinking about this a lot. I have never, ever deliberately plaigerised either on WP or in my real life as a scientist. As a reasonably prolific science writer (60+ articles in international peer-reviewed journals) I have always considered that appropriate attribution trumps all, i.e. it is perfectly reasonable to use close paraphrasing so long as the thought or content is attributed to the original author/s. I am coming to terms with the fact that WP seems to have different rules/guidelines. So much so, that I put my last article (Pain in cephalopods) through an on-online plaigerism detector (this was before I knew of Duplication Detector), paragraph by paragraph, and rewrote where this was appropriate, before shifting to main-space from my sandbox. (I have assumed sandboxes are not subject to the same copyvio considerations - perhaps this should be checked!) This took me over 4 hours! I feel a further shackling I have here is that as a scientist, I tend to think and write like a scientist. This means that when I see a sentence written by another scientist, I am limited in the way/s I can think of re-wording the sentence or paragraph. My thinking is along the same lines as the author in terms of what it is important to say, how to say it concisely and making it accurate with correct terminology. Anyway, I am clearly taking this seriously, but unfortunately some of the language being used by other editors such as "blatant" are not helping my motivation to create content.
As for the .gif I have, it is simply a bit of fun and really means nothing to me. I actually did not realise who it was until several days after I put it on my page! I generally stay away from meta-issues and Jimbo's talk page, however, I was bitterly disappointed when I requested he look at a topic ban. It is clear he has the remit to do this, but he did not even acknowledge that he had read my request. Oh well. DrChrissy (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
For those who might be following this thread, I asked the question about whether copyvio applies to sandboxes over at [copyvio apply to sandboxes?]. Apparently it does. DrChrissy (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
(I had a brief moment of worry when I saw that there were more edits in the "retirement" section!) I'm glad that you are taking the issue seriously. The way I see it, there is a difference between paraphrasing and close paraphrasing, as hair-splitting as that statement sounds. Even in scientific academic writing, I have always felt that overly-close paraphrasing is little different than plagiarism. I've taught students who came into class thinking that it was perfectly OK to copy something verbatim from a source, or to just change a few trivial words, then cite the source at the end, and to turn that in as a term paper. They either learned that doing so would be unacceptable, or they failed the class. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying and I teach my students in exactly the same way. I am taking this issue very seriously indeed, because this has been my editing style for the several years I have been on here. I am sure that if anyone can be bothered, there will be other instances of my "close paraphrasing" and I feel that some of my detractors will stop at nothing to attack me. That is why I asked the question about copyvio in my sandbox, which I have been told is regularly monitored by several other users. But what is not said and there appears to be very little guidance for content editors here, is how close is "close paraphrasing"? Is there an objective way of determining this, or is it simply the opinion of one editor compared to another? I have been using the Duplication Detector tool over at Kype (anatomy) and noticed that notification of the number of duplicated words can be adjusted. At what point (i.e how many duplicated words) does "paraphrasing" become "close paraphrasing"? Are 3 duplicated words allowed, or perhaps it is 6? (This is probably a rhetorical question so please don't spend time formulating a reply - unless there is one). P.S. I have put relevant parts of this thread under a new heading. DrChrissy (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
* Um, this useful copyvio detector seems to be working okay now. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your suggestion[edit]

Thank you very much for your help at the teahouse, so here is a big smiley for you!

East Anglian Regional (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed. DrChrissy (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Theory of mind in animals[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Theory of mind in animals at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I have requested the removal of the page from DYK nomination. DrChrissy (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Amino acid ratio[edit]

Hi. Knew there had to be a scientific explanation of why modern cat food causes cats to over-eat and develop premature health problems. What I didn’t know is how much pet food manufactures have been beguiling veterinarians. So, although I don't claim to have squared the circle on this, the following two links go to sites that seem to match my experiences almost exactly. feline-nutrition and the misguided pointlessness of Therapeutic Diets. So may your cat live long, prosper and regain her dress size 8 figure again.--Aspro (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

For you[edit]

Theory of mind in horses? http://www.thehorse.com/articles/37681/study-confirms-horses-talk-to-human-handlers?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=welfare-industry&utm_campaign=06-09-2016 Montanabw(talk) 09:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks for that. DrChrissy (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc[edit]

Hi DrChrissy. Can I politely request that you not post there again? I don't think it will help anybody if you continue. Thanks for your cooperation. --John (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi John. I had intended to make no more postings there until the editor started casting aspersions and accused me of "bad form" by posting there. I will certainly take your polite request under very careful consideration, however, if I feel the need to defend myself, I will. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
If you want to respond to K.e.coffman do so on K.e.coffman's user talk page. Unless I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc specifically calls you there you need to avoid that page for a while. It is getting disruptive. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 23:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - that was my intended course of action if K.e.coffman continued to cast aspersions. DrChrissy (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, sorry but I simply do not understand what I am doing wrong here. Am I not allowed to link to public domain sites which I provide the url for? DrChrissy (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If I understand correctly, what she means is that you wrote text that is the same as or similar to what those PD sites contain, and that, even if PD means that it is not copyrighted, and even if you cite the source material, it could still be plagiarism. (I haven't looked, so I'm not saying that this is the case.) Simply providing an external link to such a site is no problem. I hope that's a helpful clarification, because that is my intention. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Trypto. All this (not your thread) drama is really making me think of giving up this hobby. DrChrissy (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
One fish's opinion: yes, wikidrama is a pain in the caudal fin. It may be helpful, when faced with conflicts with other editors, to decide that arguing with someone else just does not matter, and to walk away and edit something different, rather than pursuing the dispute. It's only a website. As for paraphrasing and all that, feel free to contact me at my talk if you want me to provide fresh eyes on something specific, and I can give you advice about whether or not something should be written differently. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I must admit that I am having trouble undoing the learning from 30 years of science writing to accept that quoting 3 sentences with an attribution is not permissible here. DrChrissy (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you are very welcome. (And if you had had me as an instructor at some point in those 30 years, you would see it differently!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
OK Trypto, can you suggest how I should have written those 3 sentences. Bear in mind that they are legal statements and I believe that paraphrasing in this case is inappropriate - there are subtleties and nuances to legalese that I do not always understand. DrChrissy (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
OMG: are we talking about this: [25]?! (Remember, I hadn't actually looked at it until now.) You presented three statements from the document, and you presented them as direct quotes, with attribution. WTF is going on here? You did nothing wrong! I had figured you must have written it in Wikipedia's voice. What a mess about nothing! Here is what happened. Diannaa correctly added notes to the citation list, indicating that the material that was quoted comes from sources in the Public Domain. Nothing wrong with her doing that. But with that, the page was fine. I guess she was telling you that she had added those tags, but it sounded like she was telling you to delete the stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you see my confusion now. DrChrissy (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed I do! I'm so sorry that you had this experience. Do ask me about stuff like this, in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Uhmmm... and thinks to myself, Although Diannaa is a high flying administrator, yet s/he doesn’t appear to understand what constitutes plagiarism (in the proper sense) and so is simply throws the ball back into your court – with out any helpful guidance (other than a link to which you have probably already read and adhere to). Maybe, they behave like this because they consider themselves to be so high-flying that that don't have to provided a proper explanations. Jimmy Wales who created Wikipedia made it an encyclopedia that anyone can edit but certainly not for administrators that don't know the cloaca from their elbow to Lord over all other editors. So, ignore it. Disagreements of course will always occur. You understand your speciality more than this WP admin. Stand your ground. Don't be a pussy cat – or rather be a cat, that when backed into a corner gets those claws out – and also treat it like game. Listen to the word of Desiderata recited by Richard Burton, that will focus you mind... Water of a ducks back and all that. Then those big bad foxes will stop bothering you. All some editors can do, is home in on weakness of their pray – just like in nature. Telling you – life becomes more fulfilling when you find you can meet and beat them at their own game. WP is no more than a spare-time intellectual pursuit, to put on record accurate and well sourced information for the benefit of others which you appear to be doing. If other editors put themselves in the way of Jimmy Wales's vision -stand your ground on what you know. You studied hard-and-long and no johnny-come-lately can take that knowledge, understanding and authority away from you. --Aspro (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've noticed similar problems with legal articles. In the law, we have to phrase some things a certain way because they are well-established in law and to change even a single word changes the meaning. My take is that where there is doubt, add quotation marks and the footnote both. Far better to be accused of over-quoting than plagiarism. I also will note, in defense of other editors, that there is a lot of plagiarism that happens on wiki (the ItsLassieTime sock farm is still not finished... over 700 articles!) and very few editors to fix it. I suspect those who make these short comments are simply over-busy. Montanabw(talk) 06:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your AN complaint[edit]

This action, which I am sure was well-intentioned, seems to have failed to achieve anything except to cause great drama and bring out some strong opinions that you should be restricted from continuing to post complaints. While I do not think there is a consensus there for any action against you (or User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc), I think the courteous thing to do now would be to withdraw the complaint, and try to avoid User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc for a while. If you see anything egregious from them, you can always ping me or another admin. I would also like you to commit to a voluntary absence from the complaints procedure for a while. Edits like this one are greatly appreciated and you should make more of them. This is not a formal admin warning, but a friendly suggestion as to how I think the matter should best be progressed now. --John (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks John, I am taking your friendly advice in the way it is offered. DrChrissy (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that. Can you leave a note at AN to that effect please? Also, in a similar vein, do you mind if I delete User:DrChrissy/sandbox4? --John (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
John, I have just logged in and see that any note is no longer necessary. I have also deleted the sandbox which has now served its purpose. Let's hope we can now all return to much peaceful editing. DrChrissy (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Please don't ever cast aspersions about my motives for having an opinion again, as you did yesterday at ANI.

This isn't a request for discussion, and I don't want, nor will I entertain one, it's a strong request that you not repeat that behaviour.

You are fortunate I don't care enough to pursue that. I'll assume you were under pressure and lashed out, as is your wont.

Good day. Begoontalk 14:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Begoon: What aspersion do you believe I was casting? DrChrissy (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The birds and the bees and the noticeboards[edit]

Hi, DrChrissy. Reading the AN thread that you started recently, asking for sanctions against jps,[26] I had a thought. You'll recollect a boomerang request was started but didn't go anywhere, reasonably enough, as you had been told by two admins that such a request would be OK on AN. But it made me reflect. When you started editing in 2011, you only had a tiny percentage of edits to Wikipedia space: less than 1%, as against 90% to article space.[27] Clearly you came here for the purpose of adding high-quality content, not for arguing. Your proportion of edits to WP space remained very modest up to 2014. But since then you seem to have shifted more and more towards arguing on the noticeboards. 10% of your edits were to WP space in 2015, and 18% in 2016. Less than 50% were to article space in both 2015 and 2016. It seems a pity. Your interest is in animals and animal behaviour, and I'm impressed by the list of articles (created or developed) on your userpage. Isn't that would you should be doing here? I understand that some strong feelings have drawn you more and more to the noticeboards. But it isn't actually any fun, is it? It can't be any fun at all when respected users say things like "DrChrissy is incapable of resisting an opportunity to waste community time".[28] How about getting back to your original focus on the birds and the other animals, perhaps by means a self-ban for three months or whatever from WP space? I self-banned myself from ANI in September 2015,[29] and enjoyed it so much I extended it for another three months when it was over. I hope you try it. Regards, Bishonen | talk 20:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC).

As usual, Bish makes excellent sense, so I'll add a plus-1. DrChrissy, you will definitely remember that we first crossed paths on some of those veterinary pages. And I remember greatly enjoying editing that material with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen, what do you mean by "WP space"? DrChrissy (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Pages that begin WP: or WT:. In other words, noticeboards etc., instead of articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
That's it, thank you, User:Tryptofish. WP space is a wider concept than just WP:ANI and WP:AN; it's all the pages that aren't about creating content. I suggest a self-ban from that, rather than trying to enumerate all the WP pages I have in mind. I really think all of them are bad for you, and are distractions from content. If it was me, I'd state that I was banning myself from WP space except in cases where other people have first mentioned me. (But I hope, if you go with my suggestion and post something prominently at the top of your page, it'll dissuade others from poking you by mentioning you in WP space.) Bishonen | talk 10:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC).
  • I also agree with User:Bishonen. DrChrissy, I asked you nicely not to make any more edits like this one and this one. This still isn't quite a formal warning, but I would repeat the request to take at least a month away from the noticeboards and do some useful work on articles for a while. Please, please, take my advice. I don't see this going anywhere good if you continue. --John (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just a comment that I kind of think that DrChrissy has gotten a bad rap for a few dustups. Seems like once a person gets a target painted on their back, everyone takes a shot, even when there is minimal need. Though Bish may be right that a moratorium from visiting the drama boards (at least absent a crisis) would be wise, I do wonder if we don't have some folks seriously baiting and bullying DrChrissy. John, I fail to see what the problem was with this editor saying this (?) As for overall thinking, I've had some minor conflicts with this editor and have always found them willing to come around with reasonable discussion. Why everyone piles on is beyond me. Montanabw(talk) 07:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Surely Montanabw you know why these people "pile on". It's what the Wikipedia drama boards, those pernicious places where Wikipedia never happens, are largely for. They are a magnet for the social networkers so beloved by Jimbo Wales, who think that if they attack the real editors in a really miserable way they can build personal esteem. Then there are the sort of attackers DrChrissy specializes in attracting, fundamentalist zealots of scientism who may be doing necessary and useful work eliminating chaff in narrow fields such as medicine, but can be pernicious when they stray into the wider domains of science. Why DrChrissy wastes so much time and energy on the terminally impossible task of trying to establish an understanding with these users is not something I begin to understand. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Montanabw and Epipelagic for these kind words. I will also take this opportunity to reiterate my public thanks for all those that supported me in the AN case. I also note that the piling on involved 2 probable socks. This was on the main admin noticeboard and yet no action was taken. Isn't that the sort of behaviour admins should be looking at rather than deleting a message of "thanks" to the community and advising me to clear my sandbox. And furthermore, an editor opposing me in that thread clearly followed me to another article and attempted to prod me. The nasty tricks and harassment are clearly escalating. DrChrissy (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I hesitated what to say here, but I feel that I want to follow up. It would be a pity if this talk thread were to end on a note of nasty tricks and escalation. I do hope that this discussion ends up focusing on the positive, not the negative. I think that Bishonen's opening message was a good one, and I hope that it's where the focus will be. Like Montanabw and Epipelagic, I have enjoyed editing content with DrChrissy. That's a positive thing, a good thing. Life's too short to spend it on conflicts or settling scores. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

But Trypto, you are completely missing the point. From my perspective, editing here has become totally a matter of looking over my shoulder and dodging the nasty tricks and escalation, which is probably why my heart is no longer in content editing. I now have admins making up or implying rules that do not exist, telling me that they are closely monitoring me, and giving thinly veiled threats to place me under sanctions if I violate their made-up rules. These people are voted in to administrate, not to act as police, judge and executioner. Wikipedia is rapidly becoming more and more toxic. The way that boomerangs are called for in just the second or third post of a thread at AN/I is one prime example of that. In my opinion, if a boomerang is proposed but fails, the boomerang proposer should be boomerang-boomeranged. And from that point, we descend into anarchy. "Ban the boomerang" is what I say. I would post this to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) but this page is WP:space which 2 admins above have very chillingly encouraged me to self-ban from! I suspect it is impossible for people to understand my position without living in my shoes for a while on here. You yourself expressed surprise when I told the community that my topic ban prevents me from telling other editors that their imposition of a set of guidelines I am not allowed to mention is inappropriate for animal behaviour articles. This is the reality of falling on the wrong side of people on here. It has become so very toxic and is now an overall negative experience for me. Bring on my detractors telling me that if I feel that way, I should leave. DrChrissy (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I am very certain that what Bishonen posted was intended as the opposite of chilling. I wish you well. What you choose is obviously up to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy, I've been thinking very hard about these issues, because, believe me, I really care. Let me put it this way. By now, you have had a lot of experiences in the WP space. And pretty nearly 100% of the time, these have been bad experiences. By now, you know what to expect. The likelihood that, if you go back once more, you will get satisfaction, is pretty close to nil. So why subject yourself to that yet again? In the past, you've done good content work, and most of us appreciate that work. But, per what you just said, if you edit content, you will feel like you have to keep looking over your shoulder for nasty tricks. So, is there a relatively happy strategy for doing content editing while avoiding exposure to nastiness? It seems to me that just working on content and avoiding conflict, and asking friendly editors for help when conflict comes looking for you, is your best bet. And the more you avoid conflict, the harder it will be for conflict to be able to make anything stick. I've already offered to provide a second opinion whenever you have concerns about paraphrasing and such, and that offer stands. It just seems to me that you can choose a happy path or an unhappy path. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy, friend, I agree with what Tryptofish and pretty much everyone else has said to you in this thread. All admins are not the same, and the admins commenting here seem to have your interests at heart. You seem to be still thinking that if you can only do even more of the same things you have already been doing that a mysterious new dawn will break on the Wikipedia drama boards. But the eruption you seek of core decency, common sense and fairness is just not going to happen. There is no foundation for such a happening. There is no centralised rational intelligence at the heart of Wikipedia administration, there is no coordinated examination by users capable of judiciously weighing the actual quality of your contributions. There are no central guidelines, no constitution, no mission statement. Just the usual fragmented and random outpourings from disparate individuals and small ad hoc cabals and lynch groups, each perusing different agendas, mostly with no real interest in building an encyclopedia. What coordinated efforts there are typically revolve around administrators trying to make themselves special by further propping up and extending administrator powers and privileges. But that has nothing to do with building the encyclopedia. If you are interested in building an encyclopedia you pretty much just have to go ahead and do it. You need to be a saint. Wikipedia doesn't really support its content builders. If you are hoping drama board devotees will eventually "understand your position" then you are tilting at windmills, and you will be waiting a very long time. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I think perhaps we all need some closure here. So, here goes -
First, thanks to ALL for their comments here. @Bishonen and @John, if I have misconstrued your comments or the motivation for your advice, I sincerely apologise. Hopefully, this is made slightly more understandable given the mauling I received over at the AN thread which put me in a very negative frame of mind.
I have carefully considered the advice given here and much of this rings true. I have been involving myself in cases of incivility primarily because I have been subjected to so much of it myself and I despise this being dished out to other editors. However, Epi's points are well made. I am unlikely to "Save the world" - at least not by myself. I will desist from this course of behaviour in the future.
Finally, I'm afraid I can not bring myself to self-ban from WP space. This is for 2 major reasons. First I make regular (hopefully useful) contributions to places such as the WP:Reference desk/Science‎ which would come under such a broad self-ban. Second, such a self-ban would remove my protection should some editor try to prod or provoke me. However, please be assured I have heard what what has been suggested here. I publicly pledge to more carefully consider all my contributions to WP space, in particular to AN and ANI.
DrChrissy (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I really liked what Epipelagic said, thanks. And I'm happy to see your response, DrChrissy. (And by the way, contra Epipelagic, you don't literally need to be a saint. I'm not one, not by a long shot.) And I think there is no need to take the idea of WP space too literally. Of course things like the Reference desk, or like responding to RfCs, are fine. I think the point was mostly in terms of the drama boards. After all, there is a reason why WP:CESSPIT redirects where it does! And, for whatever it's worth, very shortly after I became an editor, I was shocked when a long-time admin abruptly started calling me a troll and an ignoramus, and kept at it for several months. We still steer clear of each other, to some extent, but I look back on it and find it sort of funny. For that matter, I've had IPs post on my talk page, telling me to commit suicide because I said I didn't think it was necessary to delete an image from a Japanese comic book from a page. There are some very fucked-up people on "teh internets". They aren't worth hanging out with. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Trypto - the redirect from WP:CESSPIT made me smile. Yes, what Epi said made an awful lot of sense, and I am taking that on board, along with the other advice. Regarding the WP space issue, I realised that the main concerns were related to the drama boards which is why I specified these in my pledge. It is possible that people do not realise the breadth of my contributions across WP, and why should they? However, I did not want to state something publicly which would then provide further opportunity for those playing "gotcha" with me. I hope my pledge is a useful compromise and I invite you, or any other editor, to remind me of this if you should see fit. DrChrissy (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Special:Diff/726970534[edit]

You have reintroduced CS1 errors: Vancouver style in that article. If you do not want Vancouver style to be used, please format the author parameter properly using alternative means. --Dcirovic (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This should be discussed at the article talk page. Please take it there. DrChrissy (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
There are no much to discuss. The formatting of author fields in cite templates is very well defined. --Dcirovic (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
This issue relates to a specific article. Please take to the article talk page where it belongs. DrChrissy (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

That isn't the clearest possible bot message, so I looked to see what the issue was. It looks like the URL for cite #68, by Reus, E. and Olivier, D. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is here. If I type the url into google [digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=bts], it brings up the .pdf of the paper - am I missing something obvious? It might be that the url does not have https:// at the beginning, but when I add this, Firefox will not connect to the site for security reasons. DrChrissy (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know. I guess you could try asking at Village Pump Technical, or you could simply ignore it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Problem solved. For the future, I clicked on the "Ask for help" link in the automatic message generated by the bot and this was answered in less than 10 mins! DrChrissy (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I just saw that and was about to leave you a message. Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Re SR[edit]

I take no offence and won't respond. I just think some distance could be helpful. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean here - do you mean you take no offence at Sage's posts, or no offence at mine? I don't think I had posted anything that might be considered offensive. DrChrissy (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
No offence at the language used by SR. No, your comments were entirely constructive and supportive. --Pete (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have known Sagerad for quite a few months now and we have both been through a similar (unpleasant) journey here on WP. SageRad has usually edited with the patience and tolerance of a saint. I have not seen them use language like this before which leads me to have genuine concern for them. DrChrissy (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Goat farming has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Goat farming, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Cerebellum (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

A page to avoid[edit]

It is of course your prerogative if you want to spend time engaging habituates on the founder's talk page, but you must know by now that that page is a magnet and a haven for many of the social and special purpose networkers that infest Wikipedia. Historically it has been a chamber of horrors and a graveyard for authentic content builders. Jimbo Wales has never shown the slightest interest in the obstacles faced by competent content builders on Wikipedia, and has never demonstrated he understands these problems by writing a non-trivial article himself. Instead he has a track record of ruthlessly attacking Wikipedia's more able content builders (Eric Corbett, Sitush, Dr. Blofeld, Doc James...). This applies most particularly if they challenge his own tendency to attack them. Civil queries from content builders concerning his attacks are ruthlessly put down. I am banned myself from posting on his page because I tried at one time to give the Mr Wales the opportunity to clarify the nature of severe attacks he was making on content builders. As he has said himself, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Nor may content builders freely express concerns. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

As ever Epi, your comments are extremely enlightening and welcome here. I am staggered that you are banned from his page - I have only ever seen you as a very calm, measured and insightful editor. I really am gob-smacked by this. DrChrissy (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I largely agree with Epi. I've been watching the stuff at Jimbo-talk and also the goat-related stuff with concern, and I've been hesitating to comment out of fear of making things worse. But myself, I find Jimbo's talk page to be generally depressing when I read it, and I try to avoid it most of the time (sometimes unsuccessfully). I'm glad another editor is starting to help with the goat content, and I'm genuinely sorry over the things that happened to you there. But I have a very strong feeling that no one would have followed you there if you had not been commenting at Jimbo-talk. This is another one of those cases where entering into a toxic place tends to attract toxins. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Commenting on a user's Talk page should never lead to an editor being followed to a content page and that content of the encyclopedia being vandalised. This is what Only did. You appear to be suggesting that because I commented on Jimbo's Talk page, I should have expected Goat farming to be attacked/deleted. If this is the case, we have different ways of understanding this project. When was AGF abandoned? DrChrissy (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, maybe I shouldn't have commented, because your reply makes it sound like I made things worse. I was trying to help. In no way was I saying that what happened was right. I'm just saying that it was predictable. A good way of making it less likely to happen in the future is to follow the advice that Epi and I are trying to give you. But you will do what you will do. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
If you wanted to help, why did you not leave comments at the Talk:Goat page expressing how inappropriate the behaviour of the editors was? These were the 2 most totally transparent cases of WP:Hounding I have seen on WP. It is patently obvious the editors are trying to goad me into taking them to a Noticeboard. If you want/ed to help, you could independently request the attention of an admin. As for your comment about "predictability" arising because I posted at Jimbo's Talk page, another user has pointed out this is like saying that if a woman is raped, it is "predictable" because she wore a short skirt. If we let this state of affairs continue, Wikipedia really is doomed. DrChrissy (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy, you probably didn't mean any offense, but please don't make an analogy to rape like that. In my job I have seen the aftermath of sexual assaults. There's no comparison between the treatment of Wikipedia editors -- no matter how nasty or unprovoked -- and what real-life rape victims go through. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I certainly did not mean any offence whatsoever. Please bear in mind you are talking to someone whoose life experiences you know nothing about - I think you would be very surprised. DrChrissy (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
When was AGF abandoned? I tried to help, but that doesn't mean that I succeeded. I never claimed to be perfect. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Well good luck DrChrissy. There is limited awareness to work with on the drama boards. I doubt Trypo is any keener than I would be to follow your herculean but doomed attempts at cleaning the shit from these stables. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Epi. Regarding the Dunning-Kruger effect, you may be interested to read this.[30] DrChrissy (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo's page is sort of like the local pub. There isn't really anyplace else on en.wp where people can just show up and say what's on their mind. And just like the pub you'll hear all kinds of stuff -- bits of interesting news, people kvetching about how the world has done them wrong and it's all so unfair, drunks who swear a while and then stagger off, and the occasional nugget of true insight. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Except it is not like a local pub. If I went into any pub in the UK and kept repeatedly talking about an alternative subject and trying to make my point of view, I would not get banned. I would initially be listened to, then tolerated, and then people would probably avoid me. People would not gather round the landlord to have me banned from talking about the subject or even get me barred from the pub. DrChrissy (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Harassment on my email[edit]

@Roxy the dog: Your email to me attempting to get me to leave WP was extremely unwelcome. Please do not email me again. You are still banned from my Talk page so do not reply to this. I pinged you to alert you to my request. If any other readers know what I should do in this situation, I would appreciate the advice. DrChrissy (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If it is harassing in the way of a bully boy you could just publish it on your talk page and let it speak for itself. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Epi. Thanks very much for the good advice. I think that anyone who has been on here for a while knows that Roxy fanatically craves attention from their comments. So, in considering my response to their email, I am reminded of Oscar Wilde's words - "There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." I think in Wikipedia we put it slightly less eloquently by saying "Don't feed the Trolls". I think for the moment I will take this approach, but of course, the incident has been noted. DrChrissy (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Epipelagic's advice is actually not good, Dr Chrissy; you may well get in trouble if you post a private e-mail in public. My advice, if you consider the e-mail "harassing in the way of a bully boy", is to forward it to an admin you trust, or directly to arbcom. To me, though, your description ("extremely unwelcome") doesn't equate to harassment. Unwelcomeness is in the eye of the recipient. That's just my interpretation of what you say, though. More urgently, note that calling Roxy the dog a troll on this page, and saying he "fanatically craves attention", in the same thread where you told him "You are still banned from my Talk page", is quite inappropriate. Please don't talk about him if you don't want him to post here. Bishonen | talk 19:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC).
Bishonen, thanks for this. I read the relevant policy on posting private emails without the permission of the writer, and this was part of my decision not to post Roxy's email here. I also take your point about discussing Roxy when he is banned from this page. DrChrissy (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
For those following this thread, I think Bishonen is referring to this[31]. You may also be interested to read this[32]. DrChrissy (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
There's this approach, which might cover things. But Bishonen's comment about "trouble" is right. There may be admins who will jump on you if they think they can claim you have breached any sort of privacy issue. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again. There is also WP:EMAILABUSE to consider. DrChrissy (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Bish is indeed giving you very good advice. Actually, the less you discuss it here, the better. If you really feel that it rises to the level of harassment, the best thing to do is to forward it to ArbCom (and not to an administrator; although that has been longtime practice, the handling of private information is undergoing a lot of reevaluation right now, and you will be safer going directly to ArbCom). The way to do that is at User:Arbitration Committee. No one should ever feel that they are getting unwanted emails as a result of editing here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
You know very well Tryptofish that ArbCom dealings tend to result in disaster. Content builders don't belong on Wikipedia these days, we just get in the way of important things like administration. We have two main options. One is to stop building content, start afresh and manipulate the system until admins decide we are one of them and make us a fellow admin. But why would anyone who can build content want to do that? The other is to develop stealth and learn how to crawl around unnoticed and hidden. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
My own take on this is that Hell will be suffering its coldest day ever when I next go back to ArbCom after what I saw at the case I am not allowed to mention. DrChrissy (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
My apologies. I'm under the impression that the WMF also has an email address dedicated to dealing with harassment, but I just cannot find it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I have to say, I take issue with your comment above "To me, though, your description ("extremely unwelcome") doesn't equate to harassment." When did we start judging whether people are being harassed on the language used in their complaint, rather than on the evidence? You have not seen that evidence. I am British and a scientist. My natural style of writing is non-emotive, concise and civil. If I had said the email was "a highly disgusting inflammatory piece of shit" would your conclusion have been different? DrChrissy (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I just found out what the specific nature of the email was, and I'm familiar with what led up to it. For whatever it may be worth, I agree with you: it was harassment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment and it means a lot to me. I have also just found the email posted on a Talk page. For other readers, please be aware, as Trypto has, that this email should be read in the context of previous postings. DrChrissy (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Let us cut to the quick on this issue! Scientists are naturally skeptical by nature. I don't want to get into the 'nature verses nurture' thing, but it appears to me that 'true' skepticism may be a genetic trait. There are a few editors (too many disruptive ones here on WP) that are overt pseudo-skeptics (not mentioning any names). They re – order their logic to conform to whatever gives them a warm feeling of satisfaction inside. Human personalities are multitude. Some, seem to have the genetic inborn conviction, that they were so fortunate, to be born knowing everything, that they didn’t need to have put in years of study in order to comment, criticizes and bug those editors on WP whom threatens that warm 'feeling' that they get inside from knowing they -- themselves -are always right. They thrive on attention created by their ignorant misdirections, because that is all the credos that they can ever hope to get from their pseudo-skeptic comrades. I first became aware of (or understood the phenomena of) pseudo-skeptics when working in R&D. Roxy the dog has now crossed that Rubicon clearly.--Aspro (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Cutting to the quick on another issue: the next person who attacks Roxy the dog here, where he has been asked not to post (the notion of banning him from the page is spurious, but he has been asked), or mentions him unnecessarily, will be blocked. Pinging Aspro to make sure they in particular can hear me. The whole idea of first assassinating the character of a supposedly "unnamed" group with some malicious pseudo-psychological "analysis", and then naming Roxy as having "crossed the Rubicon" into that group is very, very poor. Don't attack anybody in such a manner again, please, Aspro. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC).
  • Cutting to the quick on the same matter Bishonen, please take a look at User talk:Roxy the dog - a page I have been banned from. Let's be even-handed here. Still waiting for an answer to my question above about why you would conclude the email was not harassment when you had not read it. DrChrissy (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I have struck my comment above as I appear to have been mistaken in saying I was banned from the Talk page. DrChrissy (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh! deary, deary dear Bishonen, you do seem to have put your foot in it, perhaps both feet in it. Let me explain (although this will be waisted on any individuals –that are pseudo sceptics). I included a rider as bait : “because that is all the credos that they can ever hope to get from their pseudo-skeptic comrades”. You appear to have swallowed this hook line and sinker and replied (rather than the editor I was expecting to reply – shame, as I had an answer ready ) and conformed that you seem to work in an autonomous yet connected group). And now you're threatening to ban me. Get a grip! Now what about giving DrChrissy an answer about the harassment she has received and which you as an administrator you should sort out, without fear or favor?--Aspro (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No, I'm "threatening" to block you, not ban, if you continue attacking Roxy the dog. Sorting out the supposed harassment for you both: pace Tryptofish, I think it's a very far reach to call that e-mail harassment. There, no need to thank me. I'm rather sorry I tried do do some good here, it was clearly a waste of time and I'm unlikely to return. But please don't forget you have been warned, Aspro. Bishonen | talk 22:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC).
What do you mean by “attacking”. That was a personal opinion – or aren’t we now allowed to voice opinions any more on talk pages? This seems to originate from a dispute resolution where the normal WP process has 'failed'. Instead of using something like the the third person gender-neutral singular you have mentioned this editor's name far more than I and are appear to be creating a Streisand effect which is attracting more interest and scrutiny regarding him. We welcome admins whom are able but when they wade in and pontificate, only to then, throw their arms up in despair and blame the very editors who are trying to resolve an issue...... leave it to others to to fill in the missing words. --Aspro (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok Bishonen, so now it is apparently ok for you to say here "I think it's a very far reach to call that e-mail harassment" but if I was to post something contradicting this, you have already stated you will block me. What an unbelievable state of affairs this project is becoming. DrChrissy (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I stand by what I said when I characterized it as harassment, so DrChrissy, at least you convinced one fish, for whatever it is worth (probably not much Face-smile.svg). If others aren't convinced, so what else is new. It's business as usual, and you are not going to change it. I don't think you're going to get another email like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
If this thread causes just a single editor to think twice about sending such an email, then something has been achieved. I would like to thank You, Aspro, Epi and Bishonen (I mean that genuinely), for your support, help and advice here. Thanks. DrChrissy (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Goats & photos of[edit]

Emailed you because I was forwarding an email to me from Christian which I thought you might be interested in as background information. Your right, I should have done it another way.--Aspro (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's ok - not a problem at all. By the way, I try not to use photos which have people in them due to confidentiality. DrChrissy (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Good point but in this case, I think I can included both of these bearded critters that appear in the photo. I'm prejudging here but both seem to to come across as being not too fussed about upholding their personality rights. The sub section on Goat#Behavior is so well written that I don't want to touch it but I think I can remove the last two sentences and incorporate them into a new subsection 'goats as pets' and include Christian's image. However, I don't want to word in a way that encourages people to think of them as 'exotic' companion animals – it may encourage the wrong people to keep them as status symbols. Me thinks, the poor fellah will object to being kept as just an accessory to a family with 2.4 children, two cars, a holiday villa in Spain & a goat.--Aspro (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Ha! I see where you are coming from. ;-) DrChrissy (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the DRN regarding the use of Harriet Hall's blog post in the Michael Greger article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Michael Greger. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes[edit]

Hi DrChrissy, Just a minor correction to your comment (the noise levels there mean it's easy to be misled by misrepresentations of others). I don't think anyone is talking about getting rid of IBs in general—I have never come across a single editor who thinks we should get rid of them entirely and I don't think I am misrepresenting anyone who occasionally argues against IBs. To my mind (and probably most others who have a more flexible approach to the use of IBs, for some subjects an IB isn't just an improvement, it's absolutely essential. When I look at plant articles, for example, I want to see the genus he box, along with other bullets of facts that don't work well in open text. When it comes to biographies, it's slightly different. Some type of people (sportsmen, politicians, military employees, etc – anyone with a career that involves positions/ranks or statistics) need the IB to hold a summary of professional achievements or positions. When it comes to people in the arts, the IB is not useful. It contains the fluff of the individual (dates of birth, death, etc), but it's not possible to adequately put across the reason for their notability in the box (think Coward - how do you get across what the essence of him is within the restrictive confines of the box? You can't: you need text to explain the context of him and his work). Despite being misrepresented by IB Warriors in every discussion I've ever had about them, I am a huge fan of IBs, but only when they are used properly. I know that mine is not a view shared by all, but the one-size-fits-all mindset isn't something that works either for the inclusionists or the exclusionists. Still, I hope this is the last thing I ever have to write about the flaming things: I shall enjoy not discussing them during my retirement! Cheers – Gavin (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gavin, I hope you do not think my comment was directed at you - it was not directed at anybody at all...honestly. To me, IB's seem to be "horses for courses". Anyway, I hope your retirement will be short lived - you will be missed. DrChrissy (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doc, no, don't worry: I didn't think it was about me, but thought I'd just clarify things as there tends to be a lot of misrepresentation in these discussions, (not as bad as misrepresenting a consensus to force a close to ones own personal preference, but there you go....! – Gavin (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Horse slaughter[edit]

Left message to talk page. Take part to discussion, ok? 20:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Categorization[edit]

Regarding this edit I can't seem to find something in to support your statement "This is contrary to WP:Categorization and should be discussed at the Talk page first". Can you point out what you are specifically referring to? Thanks. Djflem (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at the Talk page of Pedals (bear) I have left a relevant quote there from WP:Categorization. DrChrissy (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

AN revert[edit]

In answer to your question: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. Didn't have time to put it in the edit summary, but it is in the block notice for the IP. Favonian (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Favonian: Fair enough - apologies for any disruption. DrChrissy (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
No worries! It hardly rates as a disruption. :) Favonian (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This may be of interest:

"Depending on his answer..."[edit]

See Arkell v. Pressdram. That is all. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

INteresting[edit]

Thought you'd find this video kind of interesting in light of the stereotypies article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e5kj5bzRAI 'Chrome's a weaver... you can see him starting to do it a bit. (and the cut-out stall door doesn't stop him) Montanabw(talk) 05:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

This is very interesting. Thanks for sending it. I certainly agree the bars do not prevent weaving in this video. I have tried to choose my words carefully. I have not found a RS which states they prevent/reduce weaving at the stable door, but they are very often termed anti-weave bars. Is Chrome a famous horse and is known to weave? Do you know whether he only weaves to music? The video reminds me very much of "dancing cockatoos" which weave or bob in response to music or the movement of a human finger. DrChrissy (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Asiatic lion[edit]

You requested a talk...

So how is it some pages have hundreds of pictures, and just adding 2 extra ones along with links makes it too much now?

Or is their a hidden agenda why you want it removed?

Bernate (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bernate: This talk should be at the Asiatic lion Talk page. Thanks. DrChrissy (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

So no reason? Please cite the rules of how much pictures are allowed that restricts what I posted? You are the one who requested this after erasing it without a valid reason, so what rules did it break, show me.

Bernate (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I see you are a new user. It is usual WP practice to discuss deletions and additions at the article Talk page so that those editors interested in the article will see the discussion. By the way, have you realised the User:Bernate page does not exist? DrChrissy (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean to say it is common practice to remove things that you dont want and make it unseen so it holds your own agenda?

You still gave no restrictions that pertain to what you are talking about. Where does the rules restrict what I posted? Or are you going to just keep repeating your self and be contradicting to the wiki guidelines?

Bernate (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not refusing to have the discussion about my actions, I am simply saying this is not the place to have it. The correct place is at Talk:Asiatic lion. DrChrissy (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Then why didn't you make a discussion there titled WHY I REMOVED WHAT I DID.

Because you still gave no reason why you did it.

Bernate (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I left a perfectly appropriate edit summary. DrChrissy (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

No you didn't, cite where wiki restricts it. The lion page has 3x as more pictures than the asiatic lion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion

The charade you're playing is starting to look obvious why you removed it.

Bernate (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Your accusations are very unwelcome. If you want to replace the images, take the suggestion to the Talk page where we can get consensus. eng-WP operates on the basis that the onus is on the editor who wishes to enter material to indicate why it should be entered. I suggest you go to the Talk page and start making that argument and we can see whether other editors agree or not. DrChrissy (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You are starting to unravel your true purpose why you did it, because I made zero accusations, I merely pointed out you have no valid reason via restrictions from Wikipedia rules that co-sign with what you did. Why take it there at this point when YOU are the one claiming it to be against the rules, where is the rules you are talking about that RESTRICTS my contribution?

Bernate (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You have accused me above of having an agenda and playing a charade. Why are you refusing to take this to the Talk page? DrChrissy (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

When someone provides ZERO-Restrictions and saying inadvertently I removed it because (IT FOLLOWS THE RULES) then yes, I am allowed to point out you not having an argument for removing it, other than 'I don't wan't anyone to see it'. The asiatic talk page? For what, it will go unanswered anyway as many post dont get replied to for months, I don't have time to wait months for something that has no restrictions other than your ulterior motives you yet to answer for, since YOU, are the person who wants to restrict it, be so kindly to present why YOU removed it. Bernate (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the edit summary I left after I deleted the images? DrChrissy (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no restrictions or wiki-laws that you can cite to that makes your reason valid.So if I was to re-edit and undo it with the reason, this page DOES NOT have enough pictures (the opposite of your reason...you would be able to find a restriction for it? No you wouldnt, hence it is not a valid reason other than your WP:NPOVD which is now becoming hilariously obvious. Bernate (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Bernate (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Kindly inform me what my NPOVD is? DrChrissy (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You already know it, the same reason why you removed it, you are bias, hence you do not wish for anyone to know that a lion has been documented killing a tiger IN THE WILD, or maybe you could actually show us FOR ONCE, where Wikipedia has a law that a page can only have a certain amount of pictures, which is YOUR ONLY ARGUMENT GIVEN. A argument not supported by Wikipedia guidelines. Quite sad really that Wikipedia is subjected to your kind, people who want to hide the truth from the world for their own selfish agendas. Bernate (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Lions kill tigers. Are you happy now? DrChrissy (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

No, because you did not undo what you did, kindly undo what you have done, if not, open a discussion in the talk page and give everyone several reasons why they should NOT be apart of the page. As it is about the asiatic lion, one at the ganges river and the other at the tapti river. Please give up VALID reasons that are NOT restrictions on wikipedia why you want it removed and obliterated from history like some nazi who wants to destroy history.

Than I'll be happy to concede to your arguments. Until then, you are trolling. Bernate (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

As a newcomer to wikipedia, I am being very tolerant of your insults and accusations. However, comparing another editor to being a Nazi is very much looked down upon and could lead to sanctions. DrChrissy (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I am just calling things as it is because you REFUSE to give a valid reason that does not restrict the rules of wikipedia, there are 20 pictures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_lion

there are 58 pictures on the lion page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion

That is THREE TIMES MORE pictures than the asiatic lion page, so you are left with three options, go to the lion page and erase all the 58 pictures because it by far exceeds the asiatic lion page which you refuse to give a valid reason for to propagate, or...undo your editing in removing it restoring the fully justifiable links that ARE RELATE TO THE PAGE...or thirdly, make a discussion and GIVE REASONS why you removed things that WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT RESTRICT. At this point you are starting to sound both hypocritical and contradicting. So you are saying that my nazi statement would thence be false? The nazi's destroyed art to make it that no one knows the historical truth of its substance, exactly what you are doing. I showed the WP:NPOVD because it is made to dispute the neutrality, in other words show that you are bias, since you haven't given any restrictions, thats pretty much what you are doing, how am I wrong? Bernate (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I repeat - do not compare me to being a Nazi. I have already told you multiple times I will restate my reason/s for deleting the images at Talk:Asiatic lion. Your refusal to do this is being disruptive. DrChrissy (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Only you are refusing to do this, I bet as soon as you do or I do make a discussion there you will flop on your reasons, in that case, challenge excepted, I will make a page specifically titled why does Drchrissy refuse to except valid sources and contradict the guidelines and rules of wikipedia.

Bernate (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you make a more neutral heading such as "Should these images be included in the article?". DrChrissy (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Whats the matter, can't come up with a good argument to something you intended to troll on? It is now created, I await your such intelligent and valid points.

Bernate (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for proving me right, you just didnt want it on because you are bias...so sad its almost pathetic. Bernate (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I have replied at the talk page. DrChrissy (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

With another yet pathetic and contradicting answer. Bernate (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

lol wow, so you were just waiting for the three law rule to hide the info even further? Man you are desperate and pathetic. It must really bother you that a lion killed a tiger in the wild, and you not being able to find anything of vice versa. Some people call that butt hurt. Bernate (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Bernate, this is your only warning. Do not engage in harassment or personal attacks. Either discuss your disagreements with DrChrissy civilly, or leave him alone. Your demeanor is unacceptable and will not be tolerated further. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs)

Oshwah I'M STILL WAITING FOR THE RESTRICTION....where is my contribution restricted by Wikipedia? WHERE!!! Bernate (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

What in God's name are you talking about? If you have a disagreement, you're welcome to talk to me about it on my talk page. But this harassment you're engaging in here on DrChrissy's talk page is to stop. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Harassing? shes VANDALIZING my contribution with FALSELY stating things that have NO RESTRICTIONS, SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! THIS IS VANDALISM! Bernate (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see no vandalism made by DrChrissy on the Asiatic lion article what-so-ever. In fact, I'll be commending DrChrissy for being so incredibly patient with you, even after your repeated personal attacks and incivility. DrChrissy has asked you nicely to keep the discussion on the article's talk page, which is what you really should be doing. I also note that you've been repeatedly reverting your changes to the article despite having it removed by multiple editors. This is edit warring, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I suggest that you return to the article's talk page and resume the discussion there. If you make further repeated reversions to the article without consensus, you can be blocked for edit warring. Thank you for understanding and for disengaging with the harassment. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

yeah, you commend people for vandalism, right on, puh....I wont comment here again, I see through her sick joke of a bias ulterior agenda. No need to further prove that point. Get her way, I don't care, hang on to bias and propagated narratives. Its sickening to know...but the truth will always avail. I wont post here again, so get in your last word to make your self feel better Bernate (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Your accusations and harassment have continued above and despite being given a final warning. I told you that this incivility would stop, one way or another. You're welcome to return after 24 hours and contribute positively and within Wikipedia's civility policy and without making personal attacks when you're ready to do so. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
DrChrissy, I highly commend you for your patience and your civility despite the opposite being thrown at you today. Completely ignoring the harassment and the accusations being tossed at you, and keeping the topic at-hand towards policy and the content in question is a very rare skill that even many of our best contributors fall short with. You've probably seen my talk page many times; it gets trashed, vandalized, and pooped on with outing and accusations all the time. If you're like me, that stuff makes you smirk or even laugh at the most, and it doesn't get to you at all - because, really, it's all just silly anyways. Please know that this skill you possess is a diamond in a great pile of sand, that it's what we need on this project, and that it absolutely does not go unnoticed - at least by me, it doesn't :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Bravo!! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh no, you have a bias ulterior agenda against lions! This is very serious! I'm a topic ban you from lions broadly construed! Bishonen | talk 00:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC).
Never broadly construe a lion. That can be very dangerous. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all. Now where are those pesky images of cows murdering grass... DrChrissy (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Cows committing herbicide.
Your wish is my command. Hope that the poaceae they are grazing on was suitably anaesthetized first! Odd thought. These vegetarians who protest about us omnivores eating meat, sit down everyday an devour living tomatoes etc,. Vegans love masticating the living baby embryos of plants, or boiling them alive etc. Strange world. Oh, this is making me feel hungry and I'm wondering what's left in the fridge (fortunately, food eaten straight from the fridge doesn’t contain any calories – no really, I read it some where on Wikipedia and my bathroom scales need re-calibrating again - Help!). --Aspro (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Another group of murderers - note their dismal attempts at disguise by wearing woolly jackets.
DrChrissy (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Think they may be aware of being exposed for what they are, as most have got their heads down and are behaving very sheepishly.--Aspro (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It gets even worse: Salarias fasciatus! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, at last! A lawnmower that will work in wet conditions and even submerged without suffering from conking out due to water getting into the carburetor. Tell me, are they easy to house train and do I need to keep them on a leash? Do I need to get them vaccinated against ichthyosmaledelorosisis and pisceopox?--Aspro (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Alas, they just poop in their own fishtanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
More marine murder!
(Amblyrhynchus cristatus)
Stay off the grass!
Heard that modern Astroturf is a pretty good substitute for real grass but not having smoked it, I can't comment.--Aspro (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
When they go low, I get high. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hah! Now all we need to do is teach the murderers to read!!!
Not that simple. Washoe the chimp learned to communicate using American Sign Language as part of a research experiment on animal language acquisition and her reply was always the same - It was the Butler that did it (with apologies to the great, late Mary Roberts Rinehart). --Aspro (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, DrChrissy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Stotting[edit]

Hi DrChrissie, trying to understand your comments on my "Stotting" edits and what's required to present the material correctly. Thanks for any help. Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookj651 (talkcontribs) 07:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Jon, you have already been informed on your Talk page about the articles you need to read. These are reliable source, include a citation and referencing for beginners tutorial. If you are citing a paper you presented yourself, you must also read WP:COI very carefully. DrChrissy (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I hatted it[edit]

I saw that sub-thread at ANI where the other editor made personal attacks against you, and I hatted it. Sorry that that happened to you. The other editor's conduct was atrocious. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I saw your hatting - thanks very much for that. DrChrissy (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The holidays are here!![edit]

Merry Christmas tree worm.jpg

Face-grin.svg Atsme📞📧 22:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Icelandic horse in the snow.gif Merry Christmas
Hoping you stay warm and have lots of good times and good food this holiday season! White Arabian Filly Neigh

Holiday card[edit]

Russell Xmas 1926.jpg
Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,
DrChrissy!
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you
That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end
And sickness nor sorrow don't find you."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926.
Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request archived[edit]

Hi DrChrissy, at the direction of the Arbitration Committee, an arbitration amendment request that you were listed as a party to has been closed and archived here. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


ToM e-mail retry[edit]

Hi! Thanks for all of your work on wp. Do you know about the Science article "Great apes anticipate that other individuals will act according to false beliefs" Science 07 Oct 2016: Vol. 354, Issue 6308, pp. 110-114 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf8110

I think that should be discussed on the ToM page. Do you agree? If so, can/will/do you want to do it? If not, would you encourage me to do it?

I'm not an expert in the subject. I was a geneticist. Dennis Drdfp (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me both of you for butting in but think this is a very worth while suggestion. Jane Goodall observed (after placing bananas in tree branches) that a young chimp spotted one but before it could retrieved, a more dominate adult came along. The young chip stopped looking at said banana until big chimp was out of sight -so not to alert big chimp to the fruit's existence. Then relived it. Shows or suggests, that little chip already must have had a theory of mind of others. It is good in some ways that very young human children do have this ability at this stage of development because Mum can spot their fascination for all of the wonderful bottles and boxes under the kitchen sink (which my contain bleach, drain cleaner, laundry capsules, etc.) and timely intervene. Think, (without being able to provide any reliable reference) that whilst a 25 year old adult chimp may be able to demonstrate the intellectual cognitive abilities of only a 6 year old human-child, their ability of conceptualising ToM just has to happen earlier, as they become independent so much earlier in life. Say that with a word of caution though. Have also read that some very young African children which have been orphaned, have been able to care for their younger siblings (which you much admit requires a ToM)– so I am not going to come out on a limb and propose that chimps acquire ToM before we do. It may just be that a chimp has to put it into practice and rely on it earlier. Our article on ToM however appears to Human orientated and perhaps a separate article on non human abilities (linking to it) would be better. That would also avoid the easy danger of anthropomorphizing by keeping the two closely link things separate. The article could be named say: Theory of mind (non-human). I say: Start the article. Then our editors who are zoologists and animal behaviourists with more in-depth knowledge than we have can add and improve upon it. --Aspro (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Both and thanks very much for your input. First, to @Aspro: we already have an article Theory of mind in animals - I created it in April last year. I think this covers what you were envisaging. To @Drdfp:, thanks for the reference. A really strong point is that it looks at (forgive the pun) multiple species. One weak point is that the animals were captive. With respect to incorporating it into the article, I am perfectly happy to incorporate it, but perhaps you might like to try? If you are unsure about this, you could use your sandbox and I could provide feedback Do not worry about not being an expert in the subject area - that is sometimes useful in being an editor. DrChrissy (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@DrChrissy:I've already started editing articles, so I don't need the experience, but thanks for the offer. The article appeared just after I had finished reading the book "Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?", so I knew how important it was, and I wanted to make sure you knew about it. So, please do add a discussion about it. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, that's fine. I will do. DrChrissy (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on arbitration/AE and much, much more![edit]

In case you don't get the notification.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC))

*@DrChrissy: A draft of a long set of thoughts. I am deliberately avoiding the word harangue.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC))

Empathy in Chickens[edit]

(my finest hour) I'm sorry, I didn't know that I used an inappropriate source. Thanks for your correction. Best Regards,

  Bfpage  let's talk...  17:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Bfpage:No problem at all. Wikipedia is a learning curve for all of us no matter how long we have been on here. I know that secondary sources are preferred, but primary sources are allowed. In aspects such as animal emotions and cognitive abilities, my own preference is to use the primary sources as many of the newspapers use "sound-bites" or sensationalist comments. DrChrissy (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement block[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your WP:ARBGMO topic ban as explained at WP:AE, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 


Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

In addition, you are warned that repeating this conduct may lead to additional sanctions such as an an interaction ban.  Sandstein  08:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Eamail[edit]

@Sandstein: I have sent you an email. DrChrissy (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

In reply to your unblock request:
"You recently blocked me for 1 week for violating a topic ban. I would like you to reconsider that block. At the AE thread, I asked you a direct question about a violation of WP: CONDUCTTOBANNED - which is a policy. I asked "If I can not bring this to ARBCOM where Kingofaces43's comments clearly relate to the XXXXX case, then where else do I take it? You seem to be suggesting that any editor can mention another editor's topic ban anywhere in the project to poison the well in the knowledge that they are acting with total impunity. Is this what you are suggesting?" You did not answer that direct question. I therefore believe that your blocking here is unsafe. It is certainly very unhelpful. Please reconsider. Dr Chrissy"
I reply as follows: Unblock requests must address your own conduct, and not that of others, see WP:NOTTHEM. In your unblock request you only address the conduct of others. The unblock request is therefore declined.  Sandstein  12:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I see admins as being there not only to enforce policy and sanctions on other editors, but as experienced WP-community members who can offer help and assistance to other editors. I am asking for help here. How should I have raised this issue? DrChrissy (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
All right, my advice is that you should not have inserted yourself into an edit-warring discussion that did not concern you in the first place. Admins don't need your or other users' advice when dealing with such routine issues. Given that you did inappropriately insert yourself into the discussion, I do not think that the other user committed sanctionable misconduct in pointing out that your misconduct in other topic areas has resulted in sanctions against you (although their comment was probably also not necessary). Again, at this juncture, you should simply have stopped replying and done something else; you should not have "raised the issue", and certainly not at AE.  Sandstein  13:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Sandstein, thanks for taking the time to answer, but I think you are missing my point. I am not asking whether I was right or wrong, or even if the other editor was right or wrong. What I am asking is if another editor raises another's sanctions apparently to besmirch them in some way, what is the appropriate venue to ask about this where the besmirched can provide information as simple as the subject of their topic ban? If there is no venue, then let's all recognise this and decide whether this is something WP needs to look at. DrChrissy (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Banning policy[edit]

We have a policy (WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED) that it is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them. Some of you reading this may be aware that I recently raised a case at AE in this regard and I have ended up being blocked for mentioning my topic ban. So what was I supposed to do? Make a vague accusation that an unnamed editor mentioned my non-stated Topic ban over at an unspecified article? Of course I would have been asked for more details. Providing more details is in itself highly problematic as I have been told that simply linking/discussing someone discussing my topic ban is a violation of my topic ban. So, if I believe an editor is taking advantage of my topic ban, how and where do I raise this issue? - or perhaps this policy is not worth the paper/screen it is written on and needs deleting thereby making way for the ensuing let's have a free-for-all on discussing each others topic bans. DrChrissy (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

There wouldn't be an issue with contacting an administrator and saying something like, "I believe so-and-so is raising the issue of my topic ban inappropriately" and asking them to look into it. However, you chose the thermonuclear warfare option and posted to a board reserved for arbitration enforcement asking for him to be sanctioned. That's an action that was likely to be seen as disruptive and a TB violation by any reasonable person, and I agree with the decision there. You are exhibiting battleground behavior as usual, and it was reasonable for the other editor to mention that this type of behavior has resulted in sanctions for you in the past. I'm frankly surprised you got a week off and haven't been indeffed or banned considering the number of times we've had to deal with your behavior problems. One wonders when you'll engage in some introspection about the fact that most of us manage to edit harmoniously for years without being blocked, topic banned, interaction-banned, and so on. --Laser brain (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Laser, thank you for offering some positive advice. However, if I was to contact an admin with such a concern, I would either have to provide a diff, thereby violating my topic ban, or expect them to trawl through all my interactions. I guess one possibility is to contact an admin by email, but does this violate my topic ban? The reason I went to AE was simple - although apparently flawed thinking on my part. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, I am able to discuss my topic ban without violating it. I assumed this extended to all arbcom pages. Apparently not. Perhaps this needs to be made clear somewhere. DrChrissy (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thats a misunderstanding of the policy on your part. Your topic ban extends to *every* page, including arbcome clarification and amendment pages. The exemptions to topic bans are if you are clarifying it, appealing it etc per WP:BANEX - which also apply to all pages. So had you posted at AN/ANI or an Admin's page seeking to clarify your topic ban, you would not have been sanctioned as this is a legitimate exemption. Conversely if you broke your topic ban at Arbcoms clarification and amendment pages by posting something not covered by WP:BANEX (you were not seeking to clarify/appeal etc your ban at all) you would risk sanctions depending of the patience of the Arbcom members at the time. The key part of WP:BANEX is "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum". Personally I think the block was overly harsh considering you were reacting to someone else bringing up your topic ban, it really warranted someone just closing the request and explaining the above to you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this. You and others may wish to look at and perhaps comment on a new thread "conflicting advice" below - I opened this while you were posting the above. This really is a minefield. DrChrissy (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting advice[edit]

@EdJohnston: pinging to be polite - I am not asking for a reply but of course you may do so if you wish. I am getting some really mixed messages here. In this thread[33], it is indicated to me that AE is exactly the venue I should have raised my concerns which have led to my block and that WP:BANEX allows the naming of others in an interaction ban and topic bans. However, others are telling me it was completely the wrong venue and I was not allowed to name my topic ban. Can anyone explain? DrChrissy (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

If you read carefully, EdJohnston and BANEX, are clear that only violations of interaction bans, where you believe the other party violated it by naming you, are exempt. Not topic bans. You cannot violate your topic ban for any reason other than appeals or clarifications. Your question to Ed was specifically about an interaction ban hence his reply. BANEX is specific that you can bring up (once) what you believe is a violation of an interaction ban. There is no such exemption for topic bans in BANEX as far as I know. Capeo (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much for this. So if I am reading you correctly, there is no set process to raise concerns about WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED when an editor appears to be taking advantage of a topic ban, other than, as suggested above, by contacting an admin. It would be really interesting to know what would happen if I contacted an admin and they decided WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED had been violated by another editor. If they took on the "case" on my behalf, wouldn't that make them a meatpuppet? If the admin said they thought I had a case but they did not want to be involved (highly likely given the adversarial tone on many noticeboards), I would still not be able to raise this without providing a link to the problem, thereby violating my topic ban. DrChrissy (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you may be overthinking this. There would be no "case", for instance, nor even the necessity of a dif. Cases are strictly for ArbCom. Also, asking an admin for assistance would in no way constitute meatpuppetry. As LaserBrain pointed out you could simply ask an admin to look at such and such page without explicitly violating your topic ban. You don't need to provide diffs for every statement you make. A simple, "Hey, I think so and so is abusively using my TB against me, do you mind looking into it?" would suffice I'd think. At that point it would be up to the admin to decide which specifics they would require from you without violating your TB. Capeo (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like great advice - thank you. I know some readers probably think I am trying to "manipulate the process" here, I am not. It appears there is no formal process for dealing with this, and I am actually trying to help develop one. If I have been caught up in this and ended up being blocked for misinterpretation of policy, this will happen again unless it becomes clearer to us all. I will raise this issue (in a positive way) at the banning policy talk page when my block is lifted. My own idea (certainly not thought through to any great extent yet) was that a page could be created to address concerns about putative violations of WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED. Editors would be allowed to freely mention the circumstances of how they think they are being taken advantage of by another editor, including the subject of the topic ban and providing diff of the other editor's behaviour, but strictly not allowed to discuss the circumstances or other matters directly relating to their topic ban. If this was violated, admins could come down on them like a ton of bricks. DrChrissy (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
In my view the most sensible course would be to either add a clause to BANEX or CONDUCTTOBANNED that outlines the above. CONDUCTOBANNED is kind of useless now as it's simply a description that gives no instruction as to recourse. I want to be clear that I don't think CONDUCTTOBANNED was violated in this instance BUT you have stumbled upon a portion of policy that is a bit unclear and deems some discussion. In my view amending existing policy to allow for the use of existing notice boards has a far better chance of happening than trying to convince the community to make a new notice board. At the same time I would think you would need to somehow get some wide ranging consensus to make changes to a fundamental policy like the banning policy. Capeo (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I was very saddened to see this incident. I believe that your first edit in the disputed thread at WP:3RRN was this: [34]. Up to that time, nobody had mentioned you or referred to you indirectly. It seems to me that you inserted yourself into a discussion where you had no business being there. It's not like it's your role or responsibility to opine on anything that was going on there. But what you said was clearly a criticism of KingofAces (and was wrong on the facts, to boot). He, then, was entitled to respond to the criticism. And nobody at AE thought that the response was a sufficient reason for you to file an AE. It's really as simple as that. And that makes any questions about BANEX and the rest absolutely moot. If you had simply stayed away from that drama board (something that I and others have previously suggested that you stay away from – remember those discussions you had with me and Epipelagic?), nothing would have happened to you. You are asking all these complex questions about policy options, but these questions miss the point. All you had to do, was to do nothing, in the first place. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Note You have mentioned Kingofaces43 by name. I have avoided doing that because I banned them from my Talk page a long, long time ago because of their behaviour toward me which included goading and prodding. It is obviously unfair to discuss the behaviour of an editor when they are unable to reply (whereas ironically it is acceptable to mention their topic ban when they are unable to reply) therefore I will permit Kingofaces43 to post to this thread, but only to this thread, if they so wish. DrChrissy (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
@Tryptofish That is all very easy to see with hindsight. Yes, I might have been wrong to insert myself into a discussion - but if we all just sat on our hands and said nothing, what would happen to the project? I could pick any noticeboard and see editors inserting themselves into discussions dozens of times a day. I could actually accuse you of doing that with your post above. The question that nobody, absolutely nobody, has addressed yet is why Kingofaces brought up my topic ban when this was totally irrelevant to the subject, a question I raised directly with Kingofaces. Kingofaces is highly experienced and would certainly have known that I am unable to even mention the subject of the topic ban, let alone defend myself on the circumstances of the sanction. Trypto, how would YOU feel if I was to bring up your sanctioned behaviour here and now. It would of course be totally irrelevant, and I am sure would make you feel extremely angry. The fact that Kingofaces did this to me and has not received any admonishment whatsoever (to the best of my knowledge) means there is now another tool in the ever-expanding tool-box of goading and provocation on eng-WP.
Regarding Banex and other policy matters. These are actually not a moot point. If you read the admins closing comments in the collapsible box, my block was for violation of my topic ban. The questions I have raised about where it would have been acceptable to raise concerns about the behaviour of Kingofaces43 have had some of the most knowledgeable admins scratching their heads and on some occasions, giving conflicting advice. I do not say this as any sense of achievement, rather, as an indication of the complexity I stumbled upon and resulted in me being blocked. DrChrissy (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, you can take my advice or not. All I can do is try to give helpful advice. If you had "sat on your hands and done nothing", other editors would have come along in due time and figured things out. Or not, in which case the sky would not have fallen. But you should never have gotten involved in that particular discussion. Period. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Just to emphasize a point I made above: nothing Kingofaces said in that exchange would have fallen afoul of CONDUCTTOBANNED. If you continue under the assumption that it did then any effort you undertake to clarify that bit of policy is bound to fail. An editor is allowed to bring up the past or current sanctions of another editor to illustrate that their current behavior is a continuation of the behavior that got them sanctioned in the first place or to illustrate they aren't impartial. As Tryptofish said above there was absolutely no reason to show up at an AE involving an editor you've had past conflicts with when you are not involved in the subject of the AE at all. Especially when your involvement was a drive-by antagonistic and sarcastic comment. The reason no admins sanctioned Kingofaces was because there was no sanctionable behavior. CONDUCTTOBANNED is to stop editors from, say, repeatedly gloating about another editors ban or continually bringing it up in venues where the banned editor can't respond.
On a further note, rather than respond to your question below, I'll just respond here. Why do you want to mention your TB on your user page? What purpose does that serve? Just let it go. It gives the impression, and this is not the first time, of trying to find the bleeding edge of what your TB allows. If you ever want the TB rescinded you need to stay far away from the edges of it. Capeo (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning my topic ban on my user page.[edit]

Would anyone like to comment on whether I can specify on my user page that I have been topic banned and state the subject of that topic ban and the ARBCOM proceedings that led to that sanction? DrChrissy (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not an admin, nor do I even play one on TV. However, I am pretty sure that there is nothing wrong with saying that you have a topic ban, and stating the name of the topic. But it can matter a lot what else you say with it. If you start discussing anything about the topic itself, other than the simple existence of the topic ban, you are likely to get in trouble. And if you keep on posting here in ways that sound like you are questioning your current AE block, there is a significant chance that an admin will revoke your talk page access for the remainder of the block period. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Trypto, I am not questioning my block. I have considered appealing again, but rejected that. I am trying to clarify things here. I have been told previously quite clearly I am not allowed to even mention the name of my topic ban on any page which the url contains en.wikipedia, which includes my own sandbox. Having just re-read WP:Tban, it appears your advice is correct and ban relates only to pages and sections about the topic. Thank you. DrChrissy (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: In my opinion, per this [35] discussion, you can state something like "I am currently topic-banned from some areas of Wikipedia, as described in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms." on your userpage without it being problematic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Personal opinion as 115 of Arbcom: mentioning the existence of the ban seems harmless, particularly in the neutral wording proposed by Gråbergs Gråa Sång above. Editorialising about the ban, or really making any other comment on it outside of necessary dispute resolution as outlined in WP:BANEX, would be a breach of the ban. Beware of treading on fine lines, however. Why do you need to mention the ban on your userpage? How does that assist any other editor, particularly, when they can read this very conversation to discover the ban exists? -- Euryalus (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I raised the question as a point of clarification. As I have indicated above, I have been told by a very senior editor that my topic ban extends to not mentioning this on any page which has en.wikipedia in the url. Clearly my user page has en-wikipedia in the url. Like you, I see no point in placing a mention of my topic ban on my user page, however, I wished to clarify whether this was allowed. DrChrissy (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
No worries. Seems an obscure hypothetical to seek clarification on, but whatever. Exceptions to topic bans are as outlined at BANEX, so if you'd like to err on the side of caution I'd stick to a strict interpretation of that. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Please believe me - I am trying my damndest to do that. DrChrissy (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Your e-mail[edit]

Thank you for your e-mail, which I reproduce below for the sake of transparency:

"I am writing to apologise for my responses and replies to you over at the recent AE complaint I brought about Kingofaces43. You stated "Indeed, this very report - not being an instance of necessary dispute resolution per WP:BANEX - is probably a violation of DrChrissy's GMO topic ban." Why, oh why did I not heed your excellent advice and immediately retract my complaint. I can only think the red-mist had descended and I was simply blinkered by the frustration of what I felt Kingofaces had done, whereas you were correctly looking at the "bigger picture". I thank you for the leniency you showed in imposing only a 7-day ban. I am well aware this could have been considerably more.
Please be assured that if you give me advice in the future (hopefully not on any noticeboard!), I will pay much more attention to this."

Although you did not ask to be unblocked, blocks and other sanctions on Wikipedia are intended to be preventative, not punitive. That is, they should last only as long as they are (likely) needed to prevent the reoccurrence of the conduct for which they were imposed. Your e-mail leaves me reasonably confident that the block is no longer needed. It is accordingly lifted. Regards,  Sandstein  20:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  • DrC: good news indeed! Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it is good news - Thank you @Sandstein:. DrChrissy (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Fringe[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Dan Koehl. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Lychee and Dog Meat Festival, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dan. There are plenty of newspaper reports of complaints about the festival in the article and I felt these adequately covered animal welfare supporters. Just to make sure, I have now added a reference in the lede to an RSPCA statement about the festival. I hope this works for you. All the best, 23:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC) DrChrissy (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake (British spelling)[edit]

I was clearly wrong about Wikipedia spelling policy. Because the enormous majority of the articles seem to use US spelling, I made the assumption that it was the standard.

In fact, as was pointed out to me, there is no standard. I think that's a mistake, but I'm a remarkably minor editor and don't feel like making an issue of it.

Thank you. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Don't worry too much about this. I think anyone from the UK or the US has felt like this at some time. I edit mainly in the area of animal behaviour and I still dislike having to write "behavior" in some articles - but we learn to live with it. Happy editing. DrChrissy (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it cold?[edit]

I just saw your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Objectionable edit summary. I think that you and Nyttend should come and see where I live for a few days. We have had one of the coldest January/February in over 15 years. We usually get one or two -40 C/F days each year but this year we have had days on end of temperatures below -40 C/F and the coldest this year was −42 °C (−44 °F). We used to get this type of weather years ago but we aren't used to it any more. It's currently warmed up to −31 °C (−24 °F) but as per usual with the warmer temperatures comes the blizzard. It's not to bad yet, only around 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) but it is supposed to go up to 70 kn (130 km/h; 81 mph) later. Enjoy your lovely warm spring weather which I see is about 9 °C (48 °F). Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

No thank you; I'm quite comfortable with above-average weather :-) Yeah, we're back to normal, but that's fine. At work today, I was making arrangements for Friday, when we're having a vendor representative coming from New England; he's looking forward to escaping the foot of snow that they have up there. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes we get the cold but not the snow as we only have around 25 cm (9.8 in). I saw the blizzard warning for New Brunswick a few days ago and they were looking at 70 cm (28 in) in one go. I just got up, its almost 1:30 am, and am supposed to go to work at 3. I see the winds are 26 kn (48 km/h; 30 mph) and the visibility is 14 mi (0.40 km) so the road will be blocked and I don't think I will be walking to work. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Undid revision 765887968 by DrChrissy (talk)[edit]

Any particular part of my proposed revision that you want me to source? Most of what I wrote is based on my own life experience. As I am both a health and environmentally-conscious person, I have many good reasons for wanting to add venison to my diet. It has a much higher nutritional value than most commercial meat, and I see it has more natural and ethically sound. Further research has given me reason to think that both my family and I could benefit from the lean protein found in the meat muscle of wild deer who have spent their lives in nature on a diet of grass and wild plants. Yet my parents can't fathom the thought of my pointing and firing a gun to take the life of such a beautiful animal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.60.41.24 (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

First, this thread you have started is about the content of an article and should be on the Talk page of that article. User's talk pages are usually for general discussion about the user's behaviour.
Second, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia and needs to be understood by all editors of WP. This policy is why I reverted your edit.
Third, please consider getting a user-name.
Happy editing. DrChrissy (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"Appropriate way to deal with this rather than deletion"[edit]

link to policy or I'm reverting. Asmrulz (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For anyone reading this, Asmrulz is referring to a post over at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Can dogs and cats eat cooked foods? where they completely deleted a post of theirs. Because there had been subsequent posts, I felt striking rather than deletion was a better option. I replied at the page - "For those who might not be aware of markup for deleted text, please see [36]. By simply deleting the comment, the ensuing thread can become confused. Hardly "screwing around"." DrChrissy (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#DrChrissy[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#DrChrissy. Notification of an AE request I am required to give you. NeilN talk to me 17:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for your violation of the ArbCom imposed two-way interaction ban between yourself and Jytdog on the page Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Final Warning (re: AN/I discussion)[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. This is as a result of the consensus reached here: [37]. You've been given numerous chances by the community, which have led to multiple blocks, and multiple topic bans. Additionally you have a current IBAN with another user, and there is clear evidence you have used AN/I to try to pile on in a debate, or try to get those you are in disagreement blocked or disciplined.

This MUST stop now. You're deliberately skirting the line of your restrictions (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Correct place to report interaction ban violation for a recent example where you tried to have someone again disciplined, without evidence to the contrary.).

The community is clear on this: Any future behavior such as this, showing up on AN or AN/I just to stir up trouble, or snipe at editors you have disagreed with, or other general bad-faith, disruptive behavior will result in a final indefinite block for your account.

This is your last chance, please make the most of it and let these things go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I also think it's important that you understand that many feel that there is already sufficient justification for an indefinite block, and the reason you haven't gotten one yet is that the community values your content contributions and wants you to stick around. Numerous people have bent over backwards to try and help you, and in return you have deliberately stirred up problems again and again. There is a limit to how much of this the community will tolerate, no matter how valued you are as a contributor, and you are at that limit. Please don't push the boundaries of your various editing restrictions, just accept them and move on. Everyone seems to agree that you have a lot to offer as a contributor if you could just stop being your own worst enemy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

I just saw your comment at the Village Pump, and realized that you are back. Welcome! I really do hope that you will be around for the long-term. And I hope that you accept that you have to take seriously the feedback you got a month ago, in order for that to happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed I have - plenty of time for reflection. DrChrissy (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I’ve not been very active recently, so I’m late to this party, but WELCOME BACK! Montanabw(talk) 02:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

For all you do...[edit]

Bravery Barnstar. The idea of Dennis Pietras, design by Chris Oxford.jpg

Bravery Barnstar.
For standing up for and defending the ground of what is known and understood. Aspro (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aspro: Thanks very much for the barnstar - much appreciated. Several days ago I sent you an email thanking you, but I'm not sure how often you check your email. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I got a few minutes after you sent it -thanks.--Aspro (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Portuguese bloodless bullfighting[edit]

Hey there, re: this, I think you meant to revert the addition of "bloodless", but instead your reversion re-added the "Portuguese" thing that I was removing, which I don't think was your intention. However, after I followed the link back to the Flickr source, the photographer describes it as Portuguese style (which wasn't clear from the Wikipedia upload data) but also, it does appear to be bloodless. The spears are Velcro-tipped and the bull is wearing a Velcro hump vest (for lack of better phrase...) Perhaps a better image from the photostream would be better. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:Hi. I think this is poor editing on my part. However, in my defence, the caption is a little misleading. It says this is "Portuguese style", however, the section on "Portuguese" does not discuss this, although the velcro method is in the text adjacent to the image. Second, it is really not clear from the image that the "spears" are velcro tipped and the bull is wearing a vest. I will try to clarify the caption and let's take it from there. DrChrissy (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I meant to change the caption after I wrote an image description, but then got distracted by some vandalism. I would note that Velcro is a trademark for "hook and loop" fabric, so it might be wise to change the description. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Done - and I tweaked the text as well. DrChrissy (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Whiffling[edit]

To use the first part of the article content for the glossary entry with its source, and in keeping with the depth of sourcing I've been using there, I've tracked down the detail for The One Show citation you used, which I thought you might want to use in the Whiffling article:

<ref>{{Cite episode|title=Segment: "Mike Dilger climbs the Cairngorms in search of the polygamous Dotterel"|series=The One Show|series-link=The One Show|network=[[BBC One]]|date=11 February 2013 |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qqxd7}}</ref>

Ideally, I would want to add the |minutes= parameter. Do you possibly have this recorded and could find out? Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

If DrChrissy doesn't mind me butting in here. The BBC only has these programs available for post-viewing for a limited amount of time. Unless they are uploaded in a legitimate way and posted on say you-tube, with a legitimate license. Any 'private' copy anyone else has, is a copyright violation. So I think we are all stuck here, where we know of a good reliable reference but the actual film-clip segment is is out of our reach copyright-wise. Also, much BBC material is only available for viewing in the UK. So readers out-side the UK would not be able to view it anyway. Aspro (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey Aspro. I think you might have misunderstood, because I am not using any copyrighted material, nor uploading anything, nor asking for an upload, nor linking to a copyright violation. This is only about a form of citation. So, can you clarify?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I introduced the One Show reference as it contained a very nice video of the birds turning upside down with comments by a guest on the show. However, I did not want to use the video because is almost certainly copyright. I wanted the comments to be verification of the birds turning upside down - is this a copyright vio?
Anyway, I stand next-to-no chance of finding the minutes this was transmitted, so because this reference is slightly problematic, I looked around for a couple more indicating the birds turn upside down. I found Ogilvie, M. A., and D. I. M. Wallace. "Field identification of grey geese." Br. Birds 68 (1975): 57-67. and this New Scientist TV editorial [38].DrChrissy (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Fuhghettaboutit. Thinking out-side the box. Mike Dilger has a web site on which he states: I am committed to bringing the beauty of the natural world to a broader audience with enthusiasm and insight, rather than sensation or gimmicks. Therefore, he may be willing to licence some of this footage under either a Creative Commons licence or the Standard YouTube License - which he already uses . If one doesn’t ask one doesn’t get. His contact details takes you to his agent. Don't use this because his agent's brief it to only maximize the revenue for his work (after all, he too has to earn a living). You may be better off contacting him directly. Then you can give it a time-stamp. This has no similarity what so ever to the Tumbler pigeons. They appear to suffer a momentary epileptic seizure that causes them to tumble out of the sky. However, we could do with some video references for this too. Aspro (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey again Aspro. I apologize if it's just me being thick, but I am finding the thread of this conversation hard to follow. The sentiment you quote from him does indeed indicate he might be a good candidate to ask for release of useful footage under a suitably-free copyright license. I just don't understand how we got there from where we started! That is, is this purely a tangent? Or does this relate and is meant to add to your original post about a copyright problem – where I was not asking about using any footage or anything that, AFAICT, possibly implicated any copyright issue? @DrChrissy: I will follow suit and cadge those citations and get rid of the One Show cite.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I can't speak for Aspro, but I think what he is saying is that IF we want to use the video, he offering an idea on how this might be possible. DrChrissy (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Chicken question[edit]

Ok, so there's a chicken in the US referred to as the "Easter Egger" which is supposed to lay a blue-green colored egg. My daughter has one such hen but the eggs she laysthe hen, not my daughter, although she's had egg on her face from time to time like her Mom are not blue-green rather they are white with a grayish tint. Is there something she should be feeding the hen that corrects whatever is wrong with the color? For example, we add things to the soil to make a flower a certain color (blue or pink), and I was wondering if the same applied to hens laying eggs. Is it a PH balance issue, or lack of iron, or something similar which is causing her to lay grayish eggs? Does it have something to do with the rooster? Should the rooster also be an Easter Egger? Atsme📞📧 23:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Not that a rooster is necessary.23:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh gosh, hope and trust that DrChrissy forgives me for butting in on her talk page yet again but chickens are my next favorite to cats. Think I can shine some light on this. If your feeding her (the hen not your daughter) a modern poultry feed and she is not in a cope but can scratch about for worms and insects, she is probably getting all the minerals and vitamins she needs. The resulting color is most probably down to what she chooses to currently lay. Next season she may lay eggs of another colour and the following season, eggs of yet another color. So it is a case of wait and see... the Wife is looking down her nose at me, like she does when I commit a faux pass, so I will re-order my favorites critters thus: Cats, Wife. Ex-wife, Ex-wife, and finally Chickens! Happy all now? Aspro (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Aspro - no problem at all with giving input here - it is a talk page.
Atsme, thanks for asking such an interesting question. My initial thought was that environmental conditions have little to do with egg colour, but after doing some research, I have had to change my mind on this.
  • My first bit of research was to look at the markings of EEs. I was staggered to see the range of colours and feathering they have. This is because they are not a recognised breed. So, the first possibility is that the hen is not an Easter Egger, but another breed of hybrid.
  • I found this web-site [39] which is more of a forum, but it has an interesting comment that a 7 year old EE has only ever laid brown eggs and that not all EEs lay coloured eggs.
  • I also found this very informative and accessible web-site.[40] It will only take you 5 mins to read it, but I summarise it below.
  • Strong sun on the eggs, particularly just after laying, can make the eggs pale.
  • High temperatures for the hen can cause her to lay pale eggs.
  • Stress or shock can cause the hen to lay paler eggs.
  • The coccidiostat Nicarbazin in the feed can produce paler shells.
  • Viral infections can produce paler eggs.
  • Older hens are more likely to produce paler eggshells than younger birds.
  • I am not totally convinced about diet having a large effect on egg colour. Commercial hen feeds have been carefully developed over many years to cater for all the nutrient requirements of the hen. Having said this, that development has probably been focused on health and egg production, rather than egg-shell colour, so I could be completely wrong.
  • So - plenty to think about! DrChrissy (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Thank you, DrChrissy. I'll pass the info along. Atsme📞📧 18:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Atsme: If I might just throw in two farthings—the blue/green color of eggs appears related to deposition of zinc chelate. Often, extra supplements of a mineral/vitamin will do nothing to change something like this if an animal has a sufficient amount in their diet (and zinc is an important mineral for bird health), but a deficiency, if it exists, might be the culprit. So I would just recommend that a check be made that the feed is not lacking in zinc. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Animal behavior[edit]

Hello, it is great running into you again. I thought that if a wikilink was included in a statement, and that if the references were in the article that was linked, this would be considered an appropriate way to reference. I typically include refs for all my content. I have about 15refs to go along with the content I inserted. I will try to pick out the best.

Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS)   09:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) No, {[u|Barbara (WVS)}}, wiki can't be a source for wiki. Montanabw(talk) 05:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah! Another editor whom can't coordinate his shift-key properly. Should be {{u|Barbara (WVS)}} . Isn’t human behaviour odd ;-) Aspro (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Another (talk page stalker) - I think you may have inadvertently stumbled upon another red-link [{WP Category: Editors who are shift-key impaired.}} Atsme📞📧 16:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Why, oh why, do all the best and most meaningful categories remain as red links ? I.E. WP Category: Editors who are shift-key impaired. Let's create it and turn it blue. Aspro (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Reflist-talk on WP:RDS[edit]

Hi DrChrissy! Did you intend this edit? It appears out of place. -- ToE 16:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Yes my edit was intentional. It was in response to this edit[[41]] in which the edit summary appears to be asking the question. Although the immediate problem has been solved, it does not appear there was any explanation of how to deal with refs on Talk pages. I was trying to clarify this. Thanks for your interest. DrChrissy (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks. I hadn't looked for context beyond how the section appears now and the state of that section prior to your edit. -- ToE 20:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I spend quite a bit of time on Talk pages and I see the problem quite often. If it now looks so much out of place, feel free to delete my posting - there will be plenty of other opportunities to make editors aware of this. DrChrissy (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't it illustrate the point better if you actually use the template, or have I misunderstood your intent? Dbfirs 17:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I did use the template - it just seems not to have worked under these circumstances. DrChrissy (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
It's much better the way you've done it now. Dbfirs 20:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. DrChrissy (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)