Jump to content

User talk:Chris Chittleborough/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, Chris Chittleborough, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - DS 22:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Brian Leiter

Hi Chris. I agree with your revision. As it stands, the links section looks fine. Sir Paul 08:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

(Responding to this comment, before I added the "Please Note" section above.)

US vs. U.S.

Hi, Chris. Check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations. It specifically endorses the "U.S." usage over "US". —Cleared as filed. 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh. So it does. I should have looked there. -Chris Chittleborough 03:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship (did you know that "adminiship" is not an English word? Unbelievable!). It ended with a tally of (51/0/0). As an administrator, I hope to better help this project and its participants: if you have any question or request, please let me know. - Liberatore(T) 12:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

VDH

On Victor Davis Hanson talk page, I wrote a bit about why his response to Gary Brecher's article wasn't particularly noteworthy. Since you re-added the link, I wondered if there should be a better explanation on that talk page of why to include it? Ojw 14:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I should have responded to you, but I never got around to it. I apologise. My view is that VDH was not trying to rebut Belcher, nor even to reply to Belcher's essay, just responding to Belcher.
Incidentally, the main reason that 26-Aug-2005 essay stuck in my mind was the second footnote.
While writing this reply, I realised what I did wrong a month ago, and fixed it: the 26Aug2005 NRO essay is now only mentioned once, with a parenthetical note tying it to Gary Brecher's essay. I hope you approve. (Of course, this now means that anyone who deletes that link to Brecher's essay, like User:71.103.214.70 did, will "break" the article.)
—Chris Chittleborough 16:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I probably don't know enough about Hanson to comment, I just noticed that the article was all extremely complimentary, and that an essay with a whole string of very good critisisms was hidden away in the final paragraph, complete with a note that VDH had "responded" in a way which might make people think the link led to a compelling well-reasoned piece-by-piece rebuttal of Brecher's claims, which it didn't.
So I don't want to be editing the page too much in my ignorance, just pointing out some parts that might need further investigation by the experts.
Incidentally, if half the stuff in Brecher's essay is credible, then VDH would appear to be a much more contraversial character than the Wikipedia article indicates.
Of course, when the critisism comes from a pseudononymous rant, it's hard to separate facts from opinions but I tried to list a few in that talk page. Ojw 17:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, Brecher's essay struck me as aiming for controversy rather than accuracy, but YMMV. I'm happy with the way we mention Brecher now; it's certainly better than my Feb 19 edit, which was a stuff-up. —Chris Chittleborough 03:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Game

Thanks for the heads up about the vandals. I'll try to keep on the ball about it. Bkkbrad 22:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Scheme pages

Hi. There's still improvements that could be made to Matthias Felleisen—what I did was almost entirely cosmetic. Still, I think that Wikipedia is nicer to use when pages look good. I don't really have much to say about the PLT Scheme family, but I can certainly take a look at the articles. I see you've already improved the DrScheme page. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. 165.189.91.148 16:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism

is a good place to start.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris: in response to your note, yes, I remember that one well. Looks like that one attack-sockpuppet account was left unblocked so I changed that. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

DECUS

The revised article didn't contain any inaccuracies I saw, although my knowledge of the subject is pretty narrow. Thanks for asking. Coll7 01:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Euston Manifesto

Thanks. In addition to summarizing it, what else do you think we should add? I'd like to make it a featured article --Tjss 04:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank both you, Chris, and you, Tjss, for covering the emergence of the Euston Manifesto (EM) online so fairly. As one of its authors, there is an obvious conflict for me in my editing its page.

The manifesto will be launched in the "real world" in about a month. It would be very good for the debate---and we do want a serious and high-quality debate---if this launch could be made a current event and the quality of the entry by then is sufficiently high for it to be featured on Wikipedia's front page. I think the EM's sections on open source and freedom of ideas should make the document of particular interest to Wikipedians. Counsell 13:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Chris

I am aware of Dr Eric Salter because of this: [1]... I'm a medicolegal enthusiast. Thanks for saving the Amiga software piracy article from extinction. It's a good article! - Richardcavell 09:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

New article

Hi Chris. There was a stub on Joseph Tkach which quite often got damaged by a particular user. I tried to bring it back to the original stub several times. I have now added a completely new article. As I am new to Wikipedia, please take a look and edit it further. Thanks.

RelHistBuff 09:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Joseph W. Tkach — CWC(talk) 10:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Photos of the injured Paul Mirecki

Response to comment at User_talk:Reaverdrop#Photos_of_Paul_Mirecki:

I added this link from Paul Mirecki's page to an online article of the Lawrence Journal-World. Since it seems necessary to satisfy the one-sided skepticism of Malkin's defenders, I'll add the link to the blurb on Malkin's page. Thanks for the message. - Reaverdrop 17:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I see now you referenced the same photo - it's not just one bruise, it's a nasty blunt-impact mark on his arm plus two horrible black eyes. Are you trying to say that image depicts what an average professor might look like after getting ready to go to work on an ordinary morning? I don't understand your objection. - Reaverdrop 17:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi - Yeah, I already noticed your changes. I just looked them over quickly, but they looked fine. - Reaverdrop 17:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Vorkosigan Saga Inconsistencies

You might want to cast your vote on the new deletion discussion page. xompanthy 22:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Home of the Underdogs

If I remember correctly, Sarinee forgot to re-register the domain (which is odd because, unlike now, she was quite involved with her website). Of course there was a squatter queued up, waiting for the opportunity. Instead of paying the extortion money needed to get back the old domain, Sarinee registered another one, which was the right decision IMO.

BTW, what's the protocol for talk pages in Wikipedia? You post questions in my talk page and I answer in yours? ;-) Andran 19:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Stairway

Thanks for the copyedit, and I'm glad you think it's good. Just a minor thing: watch the use of quotes in punctuation, especially doing "this", instead of the correct "this," with the comma inside the quotes. See you around! TheJabberwʘckhelp! 23:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's really interesting. I've always thought the American quotation system was kind of dumb, but I never knew there was another way in English. I agree with you that the British way is better, but I assume most of Wikipedia's articles are written American style. Maybe they follow the same rules as spelling: use whatever the article was created with, unless the subject is particularly related to Britain or America. I also agree with you about American spelling, which is (for the most part) more logical than British (e.g., humor vs. humour). TheJabberwʘckhelp! 15:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide

Hi Chris. There seems to be a bit of a push to get this going. Please tell us how you are feeling about this.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Leave the gate as you found it

I'm not convinced this is an Australia specific rule, as opposed to one that applies the world over in non-urban areas. The english Country Code has this as a rule, and an internet search shows the phrase being used in many U.S. publications. Steve 00:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Manual of style

You mentioned date links in the Manual of style. My position is that in most cases, the date links are unnecessary and only put there by people that misunderstand date preferences. Feel free to remove unnecessary date links.

You may wish to make use of a 'Dates' tab in edit mode that will help with unlinking unnecessary date links. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. It also provides a 'Units' tab. Regards. bobblewik 14:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Request

Before I respond to your latest comments, may I ask that you respond in a fashion similar to the way I do, so that the newest comments are below the older ones and so that the new ones aren't interspersed within the older ones? At least when responding to me, please? This makes things far more organized and it becomes easier to read and respond to your comments. Thanks in advance. Ryu Kaze 20:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I stuffed up. CWC(talk) 21:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It's alright. I used to try editing that way and then realized that I was confusing my own self, so it must have been worse for the others involved. Thanks, by the way. Ryu Kaze 22:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: Michelle Malkin

Hello Chris, A simple message such as "You might have overlooked the phrase "According to Malkin" in your editing, please add any sources where non-liberal or apolitical Asian-Americans have criticized her." would have sufficed. Comments such as "I'm guessing that you didn't notice the words I've emphasised at the start. Don't worry, we all make little mistakes like this." and "Warning: in this case, Google is probably not your friend." might be interpreted as sarcastic, and in turn, uncivil and not in good faith. I personally know many apolitical Asian Americans who think her stance is akin to denying or being ashamed of her heritage, and when I was a member of the Republican Party, I disliked her stance as well. If you would check my edit history, I have a track record of being fair to liberal and conservative personalities alike. If I find any apolitical or conservative sources, I will add them to the article. Happy editing. --Folksong 21:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

RE:Matilda Tanks

Oh yeah,I have interests in pretty much armiored vehicle in general. Thats really cool that he was a radio operator.Do you have any stories to share?

Games named FATE

No problems. They were tagged as speedy delete yesterday and I removed that rather than delete. But wans't sure where the proper redirect was. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

132.241.246.111

132.241.246.111, the fellow who put-in that bit about Johnson being investigated by the FBI, is a Chico-based editor, working from multiple IPs, who moves through Wikipedia giving articles pro-Democrat/Leftist or anti-Republican/Conservative spin. He first drew my attention by deleting the fact that D. C. Stephenson had once been a Democrat (in the article on Madge Oberholtzer). —12.72.73.74 03:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. (I'd never heard about Madge Oberholtzer before. Gut-churning stuff.) CWC(talk) 05:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Meetup on 24th August 2006

Apologies if you're already aware of this, but the Inaugural Adelaide Meetup will take place on Thursday 24th of August at Brougham Place Uniting Church, thanks to Alex Sims. Please indicate if you will attend or not.

This message left by May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) on behalf of [ælfəks], 09:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

List of White Supremacists

Got your note. Basically I placed them there with plans on writing articles on them in the near future. Tyler Chilcott, David Ruud, and Tomas Szymanski are members of the Northern Alliance, Peter Kouba is the co-founder of Western Canada For Us, and Craig Harrison is a prominent white supremacist who has been in the news lately as a result of his case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that recently ruled against him (though of the list I'd say Harrison might be least deserving of an article). I certainly hear what you're saying and understand your concern. Perhaps they should be removed until they there is information to justify their inclusion. AnnieHall 03:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To CWC

Writing such obvious and easily-checked falsehoods is not going to win any arguments, but does raise serious concerns about the writer's mental health. I'm not being facetious here: I have a nasty mental illness myself and don't joke about such things. NBGPWS, are you "all right in yourself"? Are there some pills you should be taking? (BTW, that reminded my to take mine!) I suggest you review the thought process behind those words and take any necessary action. If you do have a mental illness, acknowledging that fact is a crucial point in coping with it. Take care, CWC(talk) 19:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

NBGPWS 20:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (for "Neocons Be Gone, Protest Warriors Suck") is responding here to this edit at Talk:Protest Warrior with yet another easily checked falsehood (!) and a clear violation of WP:AGF.
What was this message supposed to accomplish? That's a serious question which NBGPWS would be wise to think very carefully about (as are the questions I asked him in the text quoted above).
I am not saying that NBGPWS is mentally ill, only that some of his behaviour suggest that he might be mentally ill. (A friend of mine killed himself because of mental illness, so I react strongly when I see people showing danger signs.) Another theory is that NBGPWS is a troll whose entire Wikipedia involvement is dedicated to harassing people he regards as his political enemies.
Please also note that NBGPWS is not an administrator, and violated Wikipedia rules by using the wrong template.
—CWC(talk) 20:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Northern League white-supremacist?

Defenitely not. Checco 21:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

URLs/ISBN

Thanks for the info, and it's a pleasure. Rich Farmbrough 13:35 29 August 2006 (GMT).

Breaking news: Greenwald says something nice about Reynolds

Hi, CWC. I figured since we had some good interactions on this, you might be interested/amused to see that Greenwald actually has something nice to say about Instapundit for a change (though naturally in the context of bashing other conservatives)[2]:

Crust 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(See User talk:Crust#Judge_Posner.2C_your_user_page for my response — CWC)
PS Thanks for setting up my user page. You're a great guy and a pleasure to edit with, even when we disagree. Crust 13:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are willing to join the Napoleonic Fiction Wikiproject then just click on the link. The project doesn't just deal with fiction - it also covers CPU games and board games as well as DVDs/TV programmes.

Thanks for the invite, Ethers, but I don't have enough time, and should stick to areas I know more about. However, I will be a grateful consumer of this wikiproject's work! CWC(talk) 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Mike18xx

Can you pop in and say a word or two? I'm seeing the same pattern of low level issues as before... thanks! ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As you requested, I've left a couple of messages on User talk:Mike18xx (1, 2). It took me a few days to get over the shock of finding that he doesn't want to use Bernard Lewis's writings as a source because he thinks Lewis is wrong. I'm not optimisitic about Mike being able to change his attitudes enough to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia; let's hope I'm wrong. Cheers, CWC(talk) 01:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for those thoughtful and useful comments.... His response to my notice that he's blocked suggests that he sees himself as a victim, which is absolutely not the case... but it's a pattern I've seen before and it unfortunately doesn't bode well for long term success. Not always though, so I will remain hopeful as well. (thread refactored here from my talk) ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Lar is, as usual, absolutely right. CWC(talk) 01:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Personal Attack

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. // Liftarn

Liftarn put this notice here because I wrote[3] the following on Talk:Adnan Hajj photographs controversy
(BTW, Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked for violating WP:3RR while trying to delete category:Holocaust denial and Category:Anti-Semitic people from the article on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)
However:
BTW, Liftarn obviously has trouble counting to 4; he tends to arrive at 3 instead. Cheers, CWC(talk) 18:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the quoted sentence above to use {{userlinks}} instead of {{vandal}} — same HTML output, but Liftarn is clearly not a vandal and I don't want to leave any room for such an interpretation. CWC(talk) 20:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It was personal since you attacked me rather than the facts. Since it was an attack it was an attack (duh!). If it's true or not doesn't matter. I am not ignoring WP:NPA#Examples_that_are_not_personal_attacks and I am not wikilawyering and I used the correct template. Please stop your ad hominem attacks and stick to the issues. // Liftarn

Liftarn, I did not attack you on that talk page, merely point out something that indicates your POV. (You are allowed to have a POV, you know; just not to put it into articles.) I tried to stick to WP:NPA#Examples_that_are_not_personal_attacks, and I think I succeeded: I wrote nothing about your personality or your motives; I made no characterizations of your behaviour; I did not impugn your credibility in any way. (In fact, I tried to note on Talk:Adnan Hajj photographs controversy that the WP:AN/I discussion mentioned possible justifications for your actions, but we had an edit conflict.)
I did write two words that were personal and somewhat derogatory on this page; I've now deleted them.
I apologise for claiming that you used the wrong template; I had not realised that we do not have a {{npa1}} template.
Best wishes, CWC(talk) 20:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Charles Colson Darwin "misstatement"

Hi, I saw one of your edits on Charles Colson said "fixed 'clever' misstatement about Darwinism" - who said it was clever? And how is it a misstatement? Thanks. --Awiseman 14:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

See reply here.
Ok, thanks! --Awiseman 14:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk protocol

So, when you post a message to another user on their Talk page, do you Watch it to see replies, or am I supposed to reply on your Talk page?

Jordan Brown 03:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are two user-talk-page protocols around here.
The old approach is that user A adds a message to user B's talk page, B replies on A's talk page, A responds on B's talk page, and so on. Many, perhaps most, contributors use this approach.
The new approach is that A Watches B's talk page after leaving a message there, and B replies on B's own talk page. Not only does this make things a bit easier for A and B, it makes it a lot easier for other people to follow old discussions. The downside is that you need to prune your watchlist more often. More and more people are adopting this approach, but it's not the standard, so we tend to put a notice on our talk pages like the one above. BTW, the "Editing" section of the Preferences page has a option to "Add pages I edit to my watchlist".
Hope this helps. Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It does. The box at the top now makes perfect sense. Sorry, I was a bit too thick to really get the implications. Jordan Brown 04:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Louder than Words

The article was badly vandalized with large sections blanked when you posted that merge tag. I've restored the sections (which were largely content merged from the various crew members articles) if you want to have a look.--Rosicrucian 14:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So it was; I checked the last few edits but it was several edits back. Bah! See Talk:Loose_Change_(video)#Merging_Louder_than_Words_here and User talk:Rosicrucian#Re:_Loose_Change_producers for my response. CWC(talk) 17:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Very vandalism-prone family of articles, and sometimes I can't catch a blanking before other editors move past it. Thankfully the content was easy to restore. I remain a little dubious about the ability of the article to survive an AfD or merge proposal, but for now at least it provides a decent clearing house for the merged content from the three bio articles.--Rosicrucian 17:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course, now we get to find out if it'll survive AfD. I've actually supported, because it does seem to be a needless multiplication of articles. We might just take a long hard look at what from the bio section should be merged and what is cruft. The production section is already more or less identical to what we have on Loose Change (video) because I harvested a bunch of stuff from Louder than Words.--Rosicrucian 19:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me that. I wasn't sure how I'd vote until I saw your input on the AfD. Yeah, I think some of the bio info is quite crufty. Putting into Loose Change (video) would improve that article IMO. Cheers, CWC(talk) 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

From User:Lurah

Ok. Maybe ASCII page itself aint right place for our site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurah (talk • contribs)

[edit] Sorry for making this so hard =) Im wikinoob and i thought this works same way as pm's on forums. I answered to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:84.251.173.185 wich i accidently find while googling things around. [/edit]

Hey, no worries. At Wikipedia, we edit each others talk pages as the equivalent of PMs on forums. There's more info in the links I put at the top of your talk page. We understand that it may take a while to learn how everything works around here — we were all noobs once.
About www.ascii-world.com: yeah, ASCII isn't the right place for a link to it, but ASCII art probably is.
Good luck with Tales From Argania. (BTW, when I went to download http://www.lemmikkini.net/lurah/argania.zip, my browser couldn't find lemmikkini.net.)
Cheers, CWC(talk) 12:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, site is bit outdated. Im working on with it. Tales from Argania is forgotten since i lost source of it while changing OS.
Ill restart it later after my present projects are finished.
I created Quick Rogue page after looking List of text based games that has ton's of great ASCII games, but pages behind ::links were 50% "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name." pages. I like play those games so i try to learn ways to write here and hopefully add something general information.
I have ton's of links to ASCII art and related websites but not gona add em since no way to check them regulary do they still exist.
Thanks for contacting and guiding. More comfortable to try to do something that might even be usefull for someones.
User:Lurah

RfA thanks

Hey Chris, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was disappointed we didn't get to 200. Giving Sarah admin privilegesduties is obviously a Good Thing™. CWC(talk) 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

DRV

Would you please look at my proposal re 911tRtT? Thanks, — Xiutwel (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Xiutwel#User:Xiutwel.2F9-11: The Road to Tyranny or [4] for my reply. CWC(talk) 14:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Overnight

Overnight, to me, seems to suggest it happened somewhere between late evening on one night, and morning of the following day. The caption said a woman was walking by a house which had been bombed out during one of Israels overnight bombing raids. It did not say "the previous night", or any such indication that it happened that night. the date imples that the picture was taken that day.--Irishpunktom\talk 18:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[Irishpunktom is replying to my comment about a photo caption quoted in Adnan Hajj photographs controversy: "A Lebanese woman ... walks past a building flattened during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs 5 August, 2006." The question is whether "overnight" means "during a night" or "during the previous night" (which would be 4/5 August in this case). I think it means that latter, in the telegraphic style used by many journalists. CWC(talk) 10:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)]

Cite case edit on Solaris page

Hi Chris, I notice you edited a couple of citations to be in mixed case rather than all caps. However, that means the titles as listed in the cites no longer match the titles of the referred works. When I entered the press release ref, I had the same impulse to change it to mixed case (I may have actually had it that way for one edit cycle), but decided in the end it made sense to faithfully transcribe it as it appeared in the cited work. (I actually checked several other Wikipedia pages that used the "cite press release" template to see what the prevailing approach was, since most press releases do put their titles in all caps; at least for the pages I sampled, the majority left the titles in all caps.)

I think having the case match the original work would be similar to what one would do if the title contained a grammar or typographical error (with the exception that you might add [sic] in those cases): it might be more aesthetically pleasing to "fix" the title, but it wouldn't be faithful to the original citation. I think not changing it is even more the correct way to go for the second edited citation, since it's a Usenet de facto standard to have "SUMMARY:" in all caps when one makes a summation post. Cheers, NapoliRoma 13:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I got into the habit of titlecasing titles for blog posts, where the URL is a lot more important than the title. (Also, I didn't know that about Usenet summations.) I've just reverted my change. Thanks for the good advice. CWC(talk) 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

White supremacy article

No need to explain to me the edits you did. I didn't notice anything major of mine get reversed. I did a whole bunch more edits after your message, because I saw more problems with the article. I mostly deleted off-topic and unverifiable content; and grouped similar topics together that were spread out into unrelated sections. There are probably many more improvements that can be made, so if you have other ideas, go for it. As for the semi-protect tag, at least it will prevent people without accounts from editing, right? That's a good step for now, and we should see what happens before getting an administrator to further restrict things. I'm not sure what happens if an article is fully protected. Maybe that could backfire. Spylab 21:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

PEST AfD

Hi; sorry to bother you about this, but I discovered more info about the PEST article and it does indeed appear to be a hoax. The claims of recent usage by Crockspot appear to be incorrect; the claim that Ted Kennedy or other pundits (with the possible exception of Rush Limbaugh) used it is false. The AHA - the organization the doctor who coined the term is the Executive Director of - is a small new age quack organization in Boca Raton, not a professional organization of psychologists like the APA. The Columbia Journalism Review ridiculed the Boca Raton paper that published about this "phenomenon" for taking the doctor seriously. Of course, you may still think the article is worth keeping, but since you cited Crockspot's additions as the reason for your vote I thought I'd let you know about this new info.--csloat 09:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:Commodore Sloat#PEST AfD (diff). CWC(talk) 12:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, I'm going to remove your comments on the above AfD unforuntately but it'll be covered in the sockpuppetry synopsis on this article. I'll note on it you commented it, give me ten mins and you'll see the full review. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 11:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message, and for doing all that work on the AfD puppetry. I like the grounds you gave for your vote, too. Cheers, CWC(talk) 12:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortuntely, IMHO though it's a very poor reason for not having an article in an encyclopedia. There is a chance that it could meet WP:BIO, but two of the three tenants are Verifiability & Neutral point of view, which I believe this article will never meet. Also the vote loading is just an indication of who ever tries to take it on will be in a struggle. I'll keep an eye on it till it's concluded. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 12:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you very much for supporting my RfA!

Atlant 20:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Another obvious "yes" 'vote'. (It turns out that Atlant has a major, major claim to computer geek fame: he was in charge of the Unibus specification for about a decade.) CWC(talk) 12:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's been a week now that I've been an administrator and I'd like to take this moment to once again thank everyone who supported my RfA, and to let you all know that I don't think I've screwed anything up yet so I hope I'm living up to everyone's expectations for me. But if I ever fall short of those expectations, I'd certainly welcome folks telling me about it!
(And yes, so any quibbles you have about the exact timing of Unibus MSYN L versus, say, the ADDR L lines, you can bring them right to me! And I can also bore you with war stories about metastability, 7474 D-type flip-flops, and the "Bus Grant" lines!)
Atlant 14:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Not going to happen: I much prefer to pretend that there's nothing but 0s and 1s down there! CWC(talk) 16:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

 For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Copenhagen (1807)

Greetings Chris

I noticed that you've marked this page as a copyvio. Unfortunately, I don't own a copy of the book you mention, but could I possibly persuade you to take a peek through the edit history of the page? It looks to me like the article has undergone quite a bit of editing on several occations, so would you mind checking if one (or more) of these versions look different than the book you mention? If this is the case, please revert the page to the last version without copyright problems. It would be a lot easier than having to start the article again from scratch. Regards. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The stuff from Sharpe's Prey was added by user 81.151.43.67 (talk · contribs) in three consecutive edits starting 03:32, 3 August 2006 UTC. I've reverted Battle of Copenhagen (1807) to the edit preceding those, tried to duplicate the good edits since then, left a Template:nothanks message on User talk:81.151.43.67 and updated Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 October 21/Articles accordingly. That should solve the problem (except that someone should check my edits to the article, please.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 11:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I was glad to help out and your edits to the article are 100% correct. Cheers. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 13:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirects at Little Green Footballs

Sorry, but as far as your one test is concerned, that would be considered original research (which isn't acceptable as Wikipedia policy). Plus, Johnson could change that redirect at any time, or he could simply have forgotten to take it off his list.

If you could find a statement by Johnson or any other reliable source stating that the redirection is intended to be permanent, that would be one thing, but until then I feel the preexisting wording regarding temporary redirection should remain as it was.

Thanks for being civil about it! RunedChozo 20:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(This is in reply to my message at User talk:RunedChozo#Redirects at Little Green Footballs. CWC(talk))

Thanks for the heads up

Sometimes I get logged out by accident. I will go there and sign it now. Appreciate your heads up! Tiamut 12:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) And now I have just noticed that I just completely forget to sign it. Must drink more coffee before editing further today. Thanks so much for noticing. Tiamut 12:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hinderaker edit

CWC: I do not know how to respond to you on my page(per your request)so here is my answer on why I thought the way you constructed a quote was misquoting. It took part of a sentence 2 paragraphs ahead of the specifically stated reason and ignored the relevant content in between, giving the distinct impression H had stated that dozens of vulgar and vile phone calls (as well as emails) came in. On the day he lost his temper, H mentions one call. He went on to say he had received about 10 emails that were "vulgar and abusive in varying degrees". A subtle but distinct difference. I make my living interpreting the written word so am more sensitive than most to a change like this. More important - as you noted, was that H.'s lengthy apology both speaks for itself, and states the words you did.

Here is the relevant part of H's' posted explanation, verbatim:

A number of readers have written, asking whether an email purporting to have been sent by me, which was posted on a site called Minnesota Politics, is genuine. It is. Here is the story: We have received relatively little hate mail in the two-and-a half years that we have been writing for this site. One reason is that we rarely choose to engage left-wing sites like Daily Kos and Atrios in their brand of argument. Around a week ago, however, both of those sites sicced their readers on us, with the result that hate mail started pouring in. When I wrote about the Guckert/Gannon controversy, the hate mail intensified; we were inundated with email messages from their readers, many of them inexpressibly vulgar and vile. These are not nice people. In addition to emailing us at our feedback address with every manner of invective, they called my office. My secretary stopped answering my telephone because callers swore at her. The telephone campaign reached a new low this morning, when someone purporting to be a reporter at a gay newspaper in Los Angeles called my office and asked me to comment on a "rumor" to the effect that there are photos floating around of me in a "tryst" with Jeff Gannon. Suffice it to say that these people are beneath contempt. So that's the context in which I was reading emails a couple of days ago. I read about ten in a row that were vulgar and abusive in varying degrees; most were unprintable. At that point I snapped and lost my temper. I sent irate and intemperate replies to the last couple of emails I read--unfortunately, not the most abusive ones, but the ones I read after losing my temper.

Melanie Phillips

I do have my reservations about the source and the way it is used in the article - at the moment it just looks like a smear, yes. But I don't see why a gossip column is inadmissible - it meets all the normal criteria for sources. And on that basis I think simply deleting the whole section is incorrect. Willing to discuss? --SandyDancer 02:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to blank material, please discuss. Otherwise you may be mistaken for a vandal. --SandyDancer 02:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup in planning

Hello, you've indicated that you're interested in future Meetups in Melbourne on this list, so I'm giving you this message to remind you that Melbounre meetup number four is currently in planning. If you haven't already, please go to Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne to suggest possible dates, times and locations. Thanks --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup

Greetings, person who is listed as being interested in future meetups in Melbourne. The fourth meetup will be held on 18 December, at Lower House in Fed Square (in the Alfred Deaking building, Flinders Street end near the Atrium: map), starting from 7pm. We don't currently have a separate location for discussion beforehand, but there'll be plenty of time to talk wiki over dinner. --bainer (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hinderaker - 60 minutes

The 60 Minutes statement is incorrectly asserting an allegation as fact. The "proof" that ths document was written in Word is highly suspect. Regardless, even if the allegation were true, it doesn't change the facts of the 60 minutes story. This is a prime example of the effectiveness of the Right Wing echo chamber, attack machine to beat down facts through bully tactics. Please do not continue to propogate suspect allegations as fact.

http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/supporting_material/Bush_Memos.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Criddle3 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. The documents were produced in Word by an inexpert user. To those of us who know anything about digital typography, this is completely conclusive. Other people need only read Joseph Newcomer's analysis ([5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]) or Appendix 4 of the Thornburgh-Boccardi report. I'm suprised that anyone takes David Hailey seriously after Newcomer's devasting rebuttals of his strange arguments.
Those documents are forgeries (and it's quite obvious who forged them). Sorry to disillusion you, CWC(talk) 09:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Krauthammer

I'm not sure to whom you were directing you post about "civility," but if it was to me, then I certainly don't need to be lectured about it. Out of the blue, I got this nasty message from some charming (we must be civil) person over a perfectly proper edit I made. I replied in kind. I know the civility policy, but I don't regard that as a decree that we all be insipid. — J M Rice 20:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I was trying suggest to Aschoeff (talk · contribs) that an apology is in order. I failed completely. Sorry.
FWIW, I see nothing wrong with your edits to Charles Krauthammer. Cheers, CWC(talk) 02:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't seen Aschoeff's comment at Talk:Charles Krauthammer when I wrote that. Urk. CWC(talk) 04:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind remarks, and for the heads-up, on my Talk page. I guess it's unwise to tell someone in need of help that he needs help. Of course, my big mistake was to reply in the first place, but I really was taken aback at how a fairly minor edit could elicit the "self-appointed censor" epithet. Actually, all I wanted was for him to back off, but apparently this person really does have issues. (He reminds me of Hitler invading Poland, then blaming the Poles.) Now that he has an advocate, does that mean I have to get one myself? Lawyer-vs-Lawyer—Great! I certainly do hope this fizzles out. — J M Rice 15:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
As for the place of birth issue, the irony is that that wasn't what my edit was about at all. Places of birth don't need footnotes. If there's controversy it should be thrashed out on the Talk page. Anyway, even if I was wrong to do it he didn't need to send a nasty note, as if I'd committed a war crime. Just revert and leave it at that. — J M Rice 15:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I can envisage a situation in which place of birth would need careful sourcing: someone fighting a deportation order by claiming to be native to that country. But that doesn't apply here.
Ironically, I wasn't trying to make a statement about the merits. For me it as just a formatting issue. I just thought if there were a dispute about it, it should be settled on the Talk page. In this case, having a footnote is like bringing the dispute onto the article page. Considering what it started, I should have just left it alone. Silly me. — J M Rice 17:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Using the "you need help" line has always been a bad move for me; see #To CWC above for one example. Of course, given the number of people who edit here, it's inevitable that some of them will be mentally ill (as I am) but not getting treatment. Result: sometimes discussions get "interesting". Then there are the editors with Asperger syndrome, who tend to be especially good editors but can have trouble communicating. (There's an aspie joke about them getting on with the work while we neurotypicals are too busy socializing; it's one of those ha-ha-only-serious jokes.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You certainly are right about that, except for your claim to mental illness. You seem the model of temperance and rationality to me. Anyway, the one bright note of this silly affair is that I have you as an "unindicted co-conspirator". — J M Rice 17:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Hewitt

Hugh writes a weekly column for the neoconservtive Weekly Standard, his favorite special guest on radio is Mark Steyn, also a neoconservative. I don't think he's in the mainstream of conservatism. Thanks.Siortega 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done comment on Juan Cole at the Weekly Standard talk page

Hi Chris,

Your comment on the Juan Cole business impressed me for the clear thinking involved. You said what I had been thinking but couldn't quite put into words. Thanks. May you get plenty of rain. Noroton 21:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

YouTube Atheists

Please explain to me what I am supposed to do about GravityExNihilo. His ohnly purpose is to delete information. I have tried to revert it, and explain what is wrong and he just changes it back. The paragraph as it reads is incredilbly misleading, and really tells nothing other than YouTube's side of the story, and relegates the other side to "led users to question". I know I am not the most eloquent writer, but my version went to the real meat of the matter, and explained subsequent actions (some of which are ongoing) which boltster the case for censorship. There were a number of story links he just deleted for no reason as well. He is clearly not an impartial actor in this. I have been on Wikipedia before, but have never tried to recover a deleted page or encountered someone whose only approach was to delete an article in pieces. I have plenty more I want to add, but I do NOT endorse any of his changes, and I don't want any further edits of mine to imply that. Yet, if I revert the censorship paragraph he's just going to change it back. I don't have any idea how to proceed. Please explain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qed (talk • contribs) 11:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh, boy. OK, several points:
  1. I hope didn't mind me giving unsolicited advice to you, who's been contributing to Wikipedia a lot longer than I have. (I thought you were quite new here when I wrote that. D'oh!)
  2. This sort of stuff doesn't have quick solutions. Wikipedia is supposed to operate by consensus, so the key is to persuade people. One of the reasons frequent reverts are banned is to force people to talk instead of reverting.
    Articles nearly always end up in a compromise. (In my experience, the compromise is nearly always better than what I would have written!)
  3. If trying to discuss things doesn't work, you could ask GravityExNihilo if he'd be willing to get a Wikipedia:Third opinion. There are other Dispute Resolution procedures available, but I wouldn't go there unless things get really bad.
  4. I'm not going to be able to help much due to shortages of time and skill. I'll try to find an administrator to help out, but everyone will be a lot happier if you and GravityExNihilo can work things out. I recommend you apologise for that "vandal" thing.
Most important of all: what Wikipedia says about something is not as important as you or I might wish, because people are learning that Wikipedia articles have to be treated with some degree of skepticism. (See Wikiality.)
Also, thanks for bstring.sourceforge.net. (I've pulled it down but haven't looked at it yet.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 12:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

adnan hajj

hello,

i saw the re-edit you made on the adnan hajj page and the altered image page. i am very new to wikipedia and only know how to do very basic edits. can i ask for your help to do the same re-edit on the proper place on the reuters article itself?

thank you in advance, amos amos 03:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I had a go at the "Allegations of Bias" section of our Reuters article. It still needs more work. Cheers, CWC(talk) 06:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Jason Wood

Thanks for what you did to the article, it does need work. Do you know if wikipedia can use images of the aph website? Woods photo would be better.Crested Penguin 01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see that user 211.26.194.233 (talk · contribs) has undone my changes. I've left a friendly message on user talk:211.26.194.233.
As for the images: that's a good question. I found the APH copyright policy, but I don't know how that affects Wikipedia. I've left a question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Question re AUSPIC photos. But I haven't noticed AUSPIC photos in our other articles about Federal politicians, so I suspect the answer will be no. Oh well ... cheers, CWC(talk) 15:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The answer is indeed no. Well, it was worth a try. Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

You wrote : "Hi, FaAFA. I think you did a great job with this message" Well thanks ! I didn't figure you for a Michael Moore fan ;-) - FaAfA (yap) 13:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Zombie's youtube videos

Hi. I notice that you just removed an external link to "zombie's videos] at YouTube" from zombietime "per wp:el". My understanding is that ELs to YouTube are OK if no copyrights are infringed, which should not be a problem here since these videos are shot and edited by 'zombie'. (See the third box at the top of WP:EL.) Would it be OK by you if I put that EL back? Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I am still trying to get clarification of youtube links. But feel free to add it back if you think it complies with Wiki guidelines. I am just one little editor but I appreciate your civility and posting here before reverting. Cheers, --Tom 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Help needed on Amir Taheri

Help needed on Amir Taheri—identical reverts by three anons. Ref: WP:AN3 report. (Asked here also.) — Athænara ✉ 07:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Followup: all three blocked for 24 hours. — Æ. ✉ 09:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've just requested a few days of semi-protection for the article (see here), partly in the hope the anon(s) will join in discussion on the talk page.
Athænara, I keep going to edit something and finding you've beaten me to it. (For example, right here!) You do lots of important work on a very important aspect of Wikipedia, and you do it very well. Good on you! CWC 09:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much! And how wonderful it would be to have semi-protection for awhile there—then we'd have a little time to work on the encyclopedia :-)   — Athænara ✉ 10:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Majorly has fully protected the article "due to edit warring". Great! CWC 17:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a good result. The article is in fairly good shape at the moment (the protected version has the full bibliography, not stripped of publishers/ISBNs/etc.) so a temporary halt of all editing will do no harm. I hadn't even thought of asking for protection; good call. — Athænara ✉ 06:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this is a list (extracted from page histories and contribs) of editors who have been disruptive on the article and/or its talk page:

= 206.223.226.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This information may be welcome, but feel free to delete it if it isn't, or forward it where you see fit. — Æ. ✉ 14:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Meetup on 23rd April 2007

Hi Chris Chittleborough,

Apologies if you're already aware of this, but I'd like to let you know that the second Adelaide Meetup will take place on Monday 23rd of April at ZUMA Caffe, 56 Gouger Street, Adelaide. The meeting is at 7:30am for breakfast with Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Meetup 2 for more details and indicate if you might attend.

Thanks,–cj | talk 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
NB: The above message is being delivered to users who are listed at WikiProject Adelaide or in Category:Wikipedians in South Australia with AutoWikiBrowser.

Fifth Melbourne meetup

The fifth meetup of Melbourne Wikipedians is being planned as a breakfast meeting in the city with Jimbo Wales (at a venue to be arranged) on Friday, 27 April 2007.

Jimbo has proposed breakfast as the one real window of opportunity during his tightly scheduled stay in Melbourne. Tbe precise time has to be sorted out with Jimbo, but the arrangements for the equivalent Adelaide meetup a few days before may give a good idea.

Feel free to edit the relevant page in any way that might be helpful. I feel like a bit of an interloper, not having attended previous meetups. If there's anything you can do to help, I'll be grateful. Please think about whether you'll be able to make it, assuming the arrangements are similar to those Adelaide is adopting (i.e. a block of time with people being fairly free to arrive when it suits them). Some indication on the page of your possible participation would be really helpful. Metamagician3000 06:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

L.A. Times alleged to alter story without notice

Patterico complains here that an ellipsis is used to change the meaning of a quote, and then notes that it has dissappeared.

http://patterico.com/2007/03/30/6069/those-three-deceptive-dots/

Sorry to be so late in getting this back to you. htom 20:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Patterico is one of my favourite blogs, and I also read the late, great Cathy Seipp, so I'm not suprised at the L.A. Times pulling those sorts of tricks. But I'd be really disappointed if the Washington Post does anything that dodgy. They seem to 'get' the web better than any other newspaper I know of. Cheers, CWC 19:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Harassment policy

Are you aware of the content of Wikipedia:Harassment, with respect to the posting of editors' personal details?

I ask this, because I have been shown an offline email of yours (apparently), in which you (apparently) take trouble to inform another editor that his details are publicly available, for those who know how to find them. Before myself jumping to any conclusions about this, I wanted to see what you had to say about this.

You can email me from my user page if you want to discuss this privately.

Charles Matthews 18:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(I responded here.)

Further to this discussion, I find that Talk:Killian documents has been archived by you in a strange way. So that its history now starts at April 11 2007. Charles Matthews 08:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I followed the instructions at WP:ARCHIVE#Move procedure, which means the history is now attached to Talk:Killian documents/Archive 7. I didn't think to check whether archives 1-6 were done that way or with cut-and-paste. I should have, because they were cut-and-pasted. Argh. Charles, if you could move Talk:Killian documents/Archive 7 over Talk:Killian documents, I'll do a cut-and-paste archive. Sorry about that, CWC 14:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that I *was* registered . . . .

Chris, Thank you for the compliment. If I edit or proofread without being logged in, it may seem that I did not sign up. But I think I did do so. I will try to slow down and log in before the next time I edit. How long does it take before a registered person is "forgotten" o/a/o dormancy?

Maybe I can try to write you again after logging in. I am not one of those who grew up with computers, so things do not come as second nature in regard to computer protocols.159.142.205.52 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem; most of us forget to sign in from time to time. We even have really good editors who prefer not to register. What we really care about around here is improving the articles, and you have a real talent for that. (I must have read the Solaris (operating system) article lots of times without seeing those problems you fixed!)
For me, the main advantage of logging in is the Wikipedia:Watchlist, but there are others advantages too.
Cheers, CWC 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Hi Chris,

Just wanted to say a quick thanks.. I appreciate your note on my talk page.

I'll do my best to be a good contributor and citizen here. 

Best,
Paul

Pdiperna 16:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

RfAR Notice regarding the Killian Documents dispute

Hi. You have been included as a party in a request for arbitration involving the Killian memos dispute. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain more fully

Please explain more fully your reasoning for excising material on David Frum November 11th article his reading of some transcript from Guantanamo captive's Combatant Status Review Tribunals. -- Geo Swan 02:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Short answer: see WP:NOR and WP:BLP. A proper answer will take me some time; perhaps Sunday? Sorry about the delay, CWC 13:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I will look for your reply on Talk:David Frum on Sunday then. Cheers! -- Geo Swan 16:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Iglesias' CK smear

(This relates to Charles Krauthammer — CWC)

Hi Chris.

Are you sure that the Iglesias commentary piece violates the BLP policies? It's an online published opinion piece, like a column, which is just like the pieces CK wrote for JWR. This is different from the online WP bio of CK that didn't meet the bar for proving any facts, and wasn't officially published in any capacity. Iglesias's words are an opinion, not a fact, and were officially published online as far as the website seems to state, so quoting them should be fine.

I believe the more pertinent question here is whether it's libelous, which I am not sure about in this context.

Of course, it's clearly negative and has an agenda, but if we're going to keep positive opinions, like the FT opinion piece, then it's fair game for a negative one, isn't it? Aschoeff 17:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just went and glanced at a reasonable counter-example to CK, Keith Olbermann's Wiki. They use plenty of negative commentary to describe him here: Keith_Olbermann#Allegations_of_bias. None too flattering, but that's irrelevant unless it's libelous. Aschoeff 20:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll make several points and hope they cohere.
  • Whether it's libelous should not be relevant, because Wikipedia's BLP standards are a lot higher than "don't libel people".
    (Jimbo Wales set that higher standard for moral reasons, not legal reasons, BTW.)
  • A small nit: we're supposed to aim for NPOV, accuracy, verifiability etc not to balance opinions. There are people about whom no citable sources write anything good — for example, Fred Phelps.
  • When I saw that edit, the ungrammatical start and the silly overstatements ("very possibly the worst journalist working in America today, a relentlessly pernicious force, never right about anything") set off all sorts of alarm bells, especially because I've been reading about some genuinely bad journalism here. So my first reaction was to revert.
  • Now that I've taken a closer look, I think we should mention that Yglesias article, as a sample of an over-the-top attack on CK. I'll edit the article and start a discussion on its talk page. My edit will definitely need improvement; please see what you can do.
Cheers, CWC 12:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is an attack piece, but then so are the articles cited for KO. I have to think about what "NPOV" means, when the article is about an extremely polarizing figure. If all the commentary out there screams either "Moron!" or "Messiah!" then does that mean you have to omit it all? This reminds me of that saying about how one's greatest strength is also one's greatest weakness, or said in another way, the things that people love the most about you are also the things that the same people hate the most about you under different circumstances. In this context, there just aren't many people who think "little" of CK; they think "a lot." I'll leave the editing of which you speak to someone else; I don't like editing poor writing either, and quoting it even less.

I very much appreciate the idea of basing the policy on moral and ethical reasoning rather than legal. Personally I wouldn't post that piece, but I can't even rectify my moral differences with my own neighbor, let alone an ephemeral online community. If the safely anonymous editor feels the Iglesias smear isn't problematic, well, then, perhaps the editor is basking in the sea of hopeful schadenfreude. Aschoeff 14:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of my reaction is because I see too many people (from all sides of politics) doing this discredit-the-opposition-completely stuff, and it really annoys me. Just because someone says/writes/does something silly does not mean that everything they say/write/do is worthless; indeed, even the best people stuff up every so often. There's too much gatekeeping going on. I'd hate to see Wikipedia join in that (and our policies forbid it anyhow), but I don't mind documenting over-the-top attacks (for the same reason I like to see Wikipedia explain the beliefs of white supremacists and other racists — it shows how silly they are).
So I'm happy for articles about people who get lots of hostility to document that hostility, and I'm happy for our article on CK to include that quote as an example of an opponent writing about CK. However, there's a line we should not cross and I'm not sure myself where or how to draw that line. So I'm open to arguments against including that quote.
On NPOV: Wikipedia's core rules are quite cleverly designed to produce good articles, but they work via emergence. Like most people, I didn't understand their merits until I'd seen them in action for a while. One of the reasons for Wikipedia's success is that the key people tend to be very, very smart, and a lot of them (eg., Jimbo) seem to be very wise as well. When people put aside their POVs and work together to write good articles, the results are often astonishing.
Cheers, CWC 17:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Janet Albrechtsen

Hi Chris. I just added a fairly lengthy comment to the Janet Albrechtsen discussion page regarding some edits which were done recently, and which I disagree with. Cheers. Edelmand 13:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shane Ruttle Martinez

Could you vote on this issue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shane_Ruttle_Martinez#Protection

Thanks. AnnieHall 20:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, done. Now to vent:
  • I wish the Toronto Sun had an on-line archive. I wish that all newspapers had archives as good as http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/.
  • Having looked at and searched a few racist-right websites, I have to say that the Canadian ones are unpleasant, whereas the U.S. ones tend to be stomach-churning. Hmm. Of course, that's only the publically-accessible pages.
Cheers, CWC 09:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
(Note to self: §4 of this is almost relevant.)
I wanted to bring the fact that AnnieHall, and others, are going from page to page editing out information they disagree with and putting in non-notable and non-verifiable sources in promotion of their POV. These pages are Shane Ruttle Martinez, Marxist Candidate Page, Paul Fromm, and Paul Fromm (neo-Nazi). There are probably others. I have no clue about the people or Canadian politics, but it is obvious that this group of people is promoting a solidly one sided view point, and even tried to remove evidence showing arrests based on violence created by their aggressive targetting of others.
Notice that you linked the same thing right there, and yet they would refuse to put it in the story. Why? I have no idea. That is whats so fishy about this whole mess. SanchiTachi 06:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's rules about Biographies of Living Persons and Sourcing can take a while to grasp. I'm sure that user:AnnieHall is trying to follow these rules. I note that JzG (talk · contribs), AKA "Guy" took part in the discussion. He's a very experienced Wikipedian with a really good grasp of our rules, and his comments merit careful reading. (Sorry for the delay in replying.) CWC 19:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your revert to Michelle Malkin

In your revert to Michelle Malkin you claimed that "(rv POV. Sullivan is not a WP:RS, and his attacks on conservatives are WP:NN)" If this is true then all the refs from much less notable far right warbloggers used in support of Malkin in the article must go too. I'll start removing them soon. I presume you're unaware that Andrew Sullivan is a conservative. TheDeciderDecides 06:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. (1) Sully was once a conservative, but now devotes much of his energies to silly attacks on conservatives. (2) None of those 'supporting' refs are from the far right, which hates, despises, loathes and defames Malkin in much the same ways as user:TheDeciderDecides. (3) The cites from conservative bloggers are valid for the particular claims they support. (4) IMO, user:TheDeciderDecides is a troll. CWC 18:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. "IMO, TheDeciderDecides is a troll." TheDeciderDecides 19:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark Steyn

I have read Irving Kristol's "three pillars of neoconservatism" and many of Mark Steyn's articles in The Spectator, and there seems to me to be a close match. He was called a neocon by another columnist, Matthew Parris, although I cannot find the chapter and verse. The pillars, namely advocationg lower taxes and less welfare at home, and intervention abroad, is not an exclusively US standpoint. "Epithet" has a pejorative slant; I don't think neo-conservative should be a pejorative term, although neo-conservatism has many critics. Viewfinder 16:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:Mark Steyn#Neoconservative (diff). CWC 18:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Totten

Hi. I see you recently stubbed an article I watch, Michael Totten, "due to WP:BLP concerns". I'd like to try to expand it, and I was wondering if there was any particular problem with the article? (There was certainly a general problem: very few sources.) Cheers, CWC 16:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Expanding from reliable sources should nullify these concerns I think. Go for it!  :-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

MacMichael

Hi, please take a look at the changes I made to the David MacMichael page, as well as the 40 or so citations I added to the deletion talk page. There are several articles in reliable sources that are devoted to this guy, and he played a key role in the World Court in the 1980s. I won't bug you about it, but you may wish to reconsider your vote. Thanks! csloat 07:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work! I've changed my !vote. Any chance you could fix up Ray McGovern as well? Please? Pretty please? Cheers, CWC 09:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Will definitely put it on my "to do" list; McGovern is certainly highly notable as well and there's a lot of stuff that needs to be in that article. Thanks for looking at this with an open mind! csloat 10:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vika and Linda Bull

The article was largely adapted from the bio page and I just haven't had any time to verify/put in references - happy if you want to hep out Dan arndt 04:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Protein Wisdom

Good work there, well done. Nick mallory 07:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup 6

Hi. This is a reminder to people on the Melbourne meetup participation list that the next meetup has been arranged for 19 June. Could you indicate on the meetup page your likely attendence, or otherwise. Regards. - Cuddy Wifter 23:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

removed sections

Hi Chris

I see you removed some sections that were on Melissa Guille sometime after June 9, 2007. I am new here so haven't digested all the rules and methods yet, however the information removed was truthful, and mostly verifiable. Some of it has to do with personal contact with myself by Guille (some of which she confirms in her posts on the site, stormfront.org). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanybright (talk • contribs)

I've responded at Talk:Melissa Guille#Sections removed, agreeing with user:Lanybright's recent edit. CWC 10:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chris_Chittleborough/Archive_1&oldid=1221603297"