User talk:Chris G

User	Talk	Email	Bots	Awards

Template:Archive box collapsible Request for permission to re-upload AltusGroup_logo_green.gif for use on AltusGroup, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CBarnowsky (talk • contribs) 15:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

• News and notes: Book publisher apologizes for plagiarizing photos by Wikipedians, brief news

• Spam attacks: Large scale vandalism revealed to be "study" by university researcher

• In the news: Supportive communication and missing incentives on Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Viriditas

On Talk:The Daily Telegraph said user appears to have a tiny bit of a civility issue. He appears to call me "not rational" and then "tendentious" for having the temerity to question a blog as a "reliable source" <g>. Diffs will not show it all as he has made over fifty edits in a day on the talk page. [1] represents my position - succinctly stated. Some of his posts include: [2] where his rationale is simply that he knows the claim to be true despite coming from a SPS. And his rationale that material is proper because he knows the Daily Telegraph is "denialist" [3] Reasonably civil to that point. Then it derails: [4] where he totally goes off the track as to how WP articles get written. [5] where he finds my position on reliable source requirements to be "laughable". [6] where he calls me "misguided." [7] where he accuses me of "wikilawyering." Followed by wall of taxt with yellow highlights <g>. [8] as one example wherein he seeks, apparently, to make this an article on Climate change denial (currently at ArbCom).

Bringing us to [9] wherein he says " This isn't in dispute by any rational person, so it's probably time for you to "give it up"." which I regard as being incivil. Decidedly incivil. I responded that such a charge was not "wise" at [10]. So he decided (I suppose in light of all his prior warnings and blocks) to respond "Asking you to stop beating a dead horse is not a personal attack. You may want to have someone explain that to you as well, since you seem unclear on the concept." I daresay that I am unlikely to get him to become civil at this point. And then, as a bit of whimsy, he responds "You have again, ignored those sources, preferring to distract and deny as before." [11] which, since I opined on nothing other than the proper use of SPS blogs in any article, is outre. Might I prevail on you to explain to him how WP:CIVIL works? Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)