User talk:Christopher Connor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

2004 Grand Prix (snooker) DYK

Hello! Your submission of 2004 Grand Prix (snooker) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! --Pgallert (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 2004 British Open (snooker)

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Christopher Connor. You have new messages at Cordless Larry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your DYK hook is too long

Hello! Your submission of The Color of Crime at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 2004 Grand Prix (snooker)

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Daydreamer (novel)

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lewis Carroll: A Biography

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion removed / "re-listed"

This is just to inform you that the September 11 deletion discussion was removed and "re-listed" under September 18 so the correct link is now Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 September 18#File:Victoria Climbi.C3.A9.jpg Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Template talk:Did you know#Racial hoax

I looked at citation #1 (p. 70) and #7 (p. 158).The Color of Crime stops at pg. 34 for me and What is crime? stop at 135 as well. I am not sure why.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of weird since I can see past those pages to the pages in question. Not sure why this is happening. Nevermind. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet advice

You filed this SPI in July after seeing suspicious behavior from Lrcee at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Limit Kids. Last night, I deleted a repost of that article at No Limit Kids: Much Ado About Middle School, and today I received a "please undelete, it's very different from the AFD version" note from JmacBrown. I suspect that JmacBrown is an Lrcee sock: the userpages and talk pages are virtually identical, both are quite interested in this same article, and JmacBrown's userpage seems to suggest that he's been on Wikipedia since before the account was created in July, just after Lrcee's block was lifted. Conversely, JmacBrown hasn't done anything that I would see as problematic, and I can't see evidence that Lrcee has been causing any problems since unblocking either. Should I file an SPI, or just let this one drop? Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied by email. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Feedback - large increase in requests

The graph says it all, really; massive increase since we cleared the backlog and introduced a bit better system. As I've said before, it is a 'victim of its own success', I think. Currently, it is pretty backlogged.

Quite a few get missed, as you can see if you flick through the archives - but I don't know what we can do about that, really, other than hope more people give feedback.

The long-term solution would be to keep these editors; so many come to just create one article, and are never heard of again; if just a few of those stayed, and started giving feedback, then we'd have a more workable system.

I suggest discussion in this WT:FEED section. Cheers!

(I've send this message out to a small number of people that I think/hope will be interested; people who have given feedback, etc. if wrong, apologies, let me know.)

 Chzz  ►  00:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK query

Hi Christopher Connor, can you take a look at Template_talk:Did_you_know#James_M._Cantor? Thanks Smartse (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Racial hoax

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Criminal black man

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Color of Crime

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested page move

Hi. I was going to suggest this yesterday but didn't get around to it, but I notice someone has made the same suggestion on the DYK page. Why not move Black people and crime in the United Kingdom to Race and crime in the United Kingdom? That way it could mirror Race and crime in the United States and the title would be more NPOV. At the moment, it seems like the article is singling out black people, and risks confirming certain prejudices. Many of the sources used in the article refer to white and Asian people as well, so the material is already there for an article that is broader in scope. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I would not be against creation of Race and crime in the United Kingdom but would prefer to keep Black people and crime in the United Kingdom. No reason why both cannot exist and 'Black people' would be a daughter article of the main 'Race and crime' one. There are certain things exclusive to black people, or to Asians etc. and merging it would be messy and some info would likely have to be cut. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Élie Barnavi

Hello! Your submission of Élie Barnavi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Black people and crime in the United Kingdom

I'm not sure you're being in the correct spirit with regard to the RM discussion. Even though there's an emerging consensus for the move, you've seen fit to attempt to dismiss most support votes and now have started a relatively pointless WT:RM thread to attempt to undo the result of the discussion. Please remember that WP operates by consensus Purplebackpack89 01:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Waterside Press for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Waterside Press, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterside_Press until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for James M. Cantor

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Black people and crime in the United Kingdom

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for BBC Somali Service

-- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Centre for Crime and Justice Studies

-- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Una Padel

-- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 2004 European Open

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Élie Barnavi

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Christopher Connor. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 21:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Terry Heaton

Mr. Connor, I'm new to this, so please forgive the clumsiness of what follows. You appear to have been the administrator who nominated my page for sudden deletion. I really don't know what to say, because it just seems so, well, arbitrary, and while I realize that's often the nature of the beast, my page had been up for several years. I would appreciate answers to the following:

What were the circumstances that led up to the nomination? Did you receive notification that I am some sort of a fraud? To what extent did you investigate the page before making the nomination?

Wikipedia is very important to me. As a writer, I've supported it when others were ridiculing it. It's a part of my own teaching, and it's referenced in my book(s). My work as an author is a part of college syllabi worldwide, so I really don't understand what has happened here, although I certainly hope and wish to find out.

Thank you for your cooperation to that end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryHeaton (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

See the notability criteria for inclusion. That page says a subject is notable if it has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Your page was deleted because it was overly promotional in nature. I can't remember how I came across that article but it certainly wasn't because I received notification that the subject was a fraud--that itself wouldn't be a reason to delete. The way to get it restored is to make sure you have sources that demonstrate it passes the notability criteria. You can speak to the deleting admin User:Kimchi.sg, and if that doesn't work, go to Wikipedia:Deletion review, to ask for a re-evaluation of the decision to delete. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Connor, thank you. I will deal with the "notable" issue later. Right now, I only am seeking to understand why I was nominated. What were the circumstances? Surely, you don't just roam the wilderness checking on pages, or do you? You know better than I that once tainted, it's very hard to get such a decision overturned. Like I said, I didn't write the page, so I'm not really sure of the source material, and I'm not even sure I want to go to the trouble to replace it. I just want an honest answer about why it was pegged in the first place. What caused you to look at the page and refer it to a powerful mod who deletes pages arbitrarily? I have asked for a review, but I don't give it much chance. I mean, the thing has been there for years and it has passed muster with everybody except you. As to the "overly promotional nature," I can point you to literally hundreds that are similar. Moreover, I even know of some where the copy is lifted directly from the notable person's website. Promotional? I thought it told the story of a notable figure very well.--TerryHeaton (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think I saw the article through User talk:Hollygirl78's edits, who created the page and a lot of spam articles besides. I looked for sources to see whether the article satisfies the notability criteria, and couldn't really find any, so I started a discussion on whether it should be deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Heaton for rationale I gave. People also noticed that it was very spammy so an admin deleted it. A non-notable page can easily stand for a long time because the project is big and few people would have noticed that page, and a page being on the project for a long time is no reason to keep it. That's it really, there isn't anything to say about why it was deleted; it wasn't a particularly complex decision or process. You can wait for the deleting admin to reply and take it from there. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm learning much through this, Mr. Conner, and I want to begin by thanking you for using what appears to be your real name. Maybe it is; maybe it isn't, but when power is granted anonymously, it runs into human nature, which can get ugly. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. Now, let's keep working backwards, because I'm serious about wanting to know how this happened. You refer to Hollygirl78 as how you came to me. Were you "investigating" Hollygirl78, and, if so, why? How did you become aware of what she was doing? Also, with regards to getting my page restored, can you give me guidance as to how it could be rewritten, so as to not violate any of the standards to which you adhere? I'm about to publish another book (Reinventing Local Media, Volume II). Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryHeaton (talk • contribs) 13:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I may have come across one of Hollygirl78's articles when looking at the list of new pages. From there, I can see what other articles she's created. I might have added some of those pages to my "watchlist" to keep up to date with any edits to those articles. But I don't see how exactly I came across that article and what was going through my mind to be particularly relevant. For help in restoring the article, see Wikipedia:Your first article. In short, make sure you have good secondary sources that cover the subject in detail, and that the article isn't overly promotional. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLP Nazi

I have just read your essay Wikipedia:BLP Nazi. I appreciate the efforts of everyone who contributes to the ongoing and important community discussion of BLP issues. These issues are in many respects more nuanced and complex than many people (on all sides of the arguments) appreciate, both within and outside Wikipedia. I have discussed some of these issues both on and off the site and expect to continue to do so.

That being said, I think that in several respects your essay is a problematic one. Many of the points you make appear to be factually questionable. For example, while there have been efforts to address BLP-like concerns in the context of recently deceased persons and as applied to groups of persons rather than individuals, I don't know of any significant effort to expand the BLP designation to 19th-century historical figures or to animals, much less to inanimate objects or abstract concepts. It may well be, indeed it is likely, that you are deliberately exaggerating for effect here or seeking to write humorously. But this is not as clear as one might wish, and as it stands, your analysis is so far over the top that it undercuts the valid substantive points you are trying to make.

Even more seriously, the pervasive and repeated use of the word "Nazi", while attention-getting, is likely to distract and offend many readers. Yes, I know that terms such as "grammar Nazi" are used occasionally and pass unremarked, particularly when used by grammar sticklers in an ironic or self-deprecating fashion. Nonetheless, it is best to use such wording sensitively if one does so at all, rather than repeatedly and indiscriminately.

Most concerning of all, I believe the use of an image of Adolf Hitler leading a military rally or parade to illustrate this essay is highly inappropriate. Equally inappropriate is the image caption, which can be read as an attempt to directly analogize overexpansion of the BLP policy to Hitler's views.

I am quite certain that you did not mean to offend anyone, and your overall record of contributions is a valued one. I urge you to rethink this particular contribution to Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Brad is soft-shoeing it. This page is a needless provocation and quite frankly, you should be told to cut out the personal attacks. SirFozzie (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:BLP Nazi

Wikipedia:BLP Nazi, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP Nazi and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:BLP Nazi during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Scott Mac 09:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you take notice of the above comments by Brad and Fozzie, you might want to add {{db-author}} to the essay, and we can close the MfD. If not, I'd expect it to be closed under [[WP::SNOW]] shortly.--Scott Mac 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Andre Geim

Hi, I left a reply for you on the talk page of the Andre Geim article, in case you don't follow that page. Since you seem to be about the only adequate person who sources things in that discussion, I would like to get your opinion on source precedence. Regards, --Therexbanner (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh. That's one discussion I'm happy mainly to let other people thrash out. I'm not too happy that the whole talk page is mainly about that issue. From what I can see, we have reliable sources saying he's Jewish, and that only his maternal grandmother is doesn't cancel that out with regards to Who is a Jew?. There's still one reference I added "As he was Jewish" that hasn't been noticed/removed. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it's making me look bad too, due to the sheer volume of talk page replies, right now my recent contributions look like that's the only thing I care about.

In regards to Who is a Jew, does that apply to Wikipedia in the full sense? I thought that was according to some groups of Jews (BTW Hasidic Jews have a different approach, as mentioned in the article)For example, Leonardo DiCaprio has a Russian (ethnic) maternal grandmother. Would it be appropriate to write "as he was Russian"? I'm not sure, but I think that would be frowned upon.--Therexbanner (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know too much about this, but from what I can see a person is Jewish if his mother is. Geim's maternal grandmother is Jewish, so his mother is, so Geim is, and we have sources saying he's Jewish. That he's mostly ethnic German doesn't mean he can't also be a Jew. I don't think the DiCaprio reference as Russian would be appropriate, but Jewish ethnicity is different by the definitions. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, in any case, if that becomes the consensus, I think it should stay the way it is right now (after your edits.)--Therexbanner (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Yoram Ben-Zeev

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thomas Henry Scott

Yeah, good call. In fact, I just ordered one of those books this morning. - PM800 (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Hopefully it'll come before the DYK time limit is up. Christopher Connor (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hit 'Em Up

Hey Christopher, thank you for reviewing, and editing this article, I will address the issues you raised soon - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Shimon Stein

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Starland

Glad to unprotect it for you. It was being hammered by an anon IP in New York and I agreed to lock it down for awhile. I can keep an eye on it and if the abuse begins again, I can always lock it down. Thanks for asking. PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Liang Wenbo

interesting approaches to editing,

[1] [2] [3] Christopher Connor (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

3rr violation

How does one go about making a 3rr complaint? I ask because Campofamericas has made many more reverts (in Ganas page)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganas&action=history
in 24 hours and has apparently received no such notice.

Also would you consider commenting on what's going on at the Ganas talk page? I've made requests for comments but not received any.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ganas#Non-negotiable_deletion
Eroberer (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help. Eroberer (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest at article Christopher Connor

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Christopher Connor, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.-- Cirt (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

See also, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Christopher_Connor. -- Cirt (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lynching of Ell Persons

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:On being Jewish

Your selection of images to illustrate this essay is entirely unacceptable. In view of the prior controversy concerning your having done exactly the same thing in your "BLP Nazi" essay, I conclude that you are deeply insensitive to the feelings of your editing colleagues regarding this subject. I will be raising this matter at the administrators noticeboard with the recommendation that you be blocked from editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANI#Misuse of Nazi images in an essay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:On being Jewish

Wikipedia:On being Jewish, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:On being Jewish and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:On being Jewish during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Access Denied – talk to me 05:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Block note

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for inappropriate use of nazi imagery despite warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Christopher Connor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I apologise for any offence caused. I can say I'll no longer be using imagery related to the Nazis (except in articles specifically about such topics). I should say that the connection with what I'm writing about isn't what people may think. Me in Wikipedia writing mode and me in real life are often completely different. You'll find no other problems in my edits: no incivil interactions, no POV-pushing, no edit-warring etc. There's some issue with people not understanding the disconnect between the writer and what they're writing about. I also seem to be confused about exactly which website I'm writing on. Now that I've said that the use of such images will not continue, a swift unblock would be appreciated.

Decline reason:

There is an overwhelming consensus at ANI that you not be unblocked at this time. Wider worries about your edits, and why you have made them, have been raised. You're welcome to put up another unblock request which acknowledges and deals with those worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've forwarded it to WP:ANI. I hope you do get unblocked, I'd like to see you be given the chance. Just don't go do something stupid like this again. StrPby (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Yes, now that I've been punished for such actions, I won't be keen to repeat them. Christopher Connor (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Truth be told, the block wasn't meant to punish you, only to stop you from editing until this had been dealt with. Could you also please further say, only so as to acknowledge your understanding of what happened, that you'll be much more careful with any images linked in irony? (Nothing about them would have been untowards as illustrations of their topics) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be careful with all images from now, not just Nazi-related ones. Christopher Connor (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, would you care to comment on this? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The subject of that article isn't me. That seemed obvious to me, and I thought should have been to others. I wasn't happy that people's immediate response was to assume bad faith and that COI has been violated - it annoys me that that's just what it's like here, always seeing if people are violating the rules, tripping others up, playing silly games. Then I was templated with the COI warning and brought to the COI noticeboard. Christopher Connor (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that as the whole story, Christopher. There was a certain amount of what looked like baiting on your part. People were saying the hooks were boring, and you asked for an exception to be made because you "happen to be particularly keen for this one to go up," [4] all the while ignoring that people were asking you to rule out COI. You were encouraging people to think it might be you, and it wasted a fair bit of other people's time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there may have been some element like that on my part. I was not happy though that within minutes of proposing that hook, someone came along and mentioned COI. They should assume anyone with 3000 edits and here for three years would be above COI. (I'm sent you an email by the way.) Christopher Connor (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I often say, this website would grind to a halt without COI. The worry would have been one of knowing if there was COI on that BLP (if there were, some editors might want to look at the text more carefully for neutrality and weight). If you'd said, "No, that's not me," I think most editors would have understood and that likely would have been the end of it. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The block is no longer necessary. I've promised that they'll be no more disruption with images. I'd also like to respond to some of the points being made at ANI, which are unfair. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to make them here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I allowed? I guess I am because you said, but it won't be read by anyone but myself.

I don't like how I'm being characterised over at ANI. The coverage of those topics is poor because nobody wants to write about them, and anyone who does gets called a racist, no matter how the article reads, no matter what the sources say. If you read those articles, you'll see they're reasonably neutral and use good sources, and there's little OR, POV, or poor sourcing. Some people have ideas about what the subject should say but know little about it. But simply writing about those topics is prima facie evidence of racism, according to most people, and anyone who writes about it has to sacrifice themselves. If you have a look, you'll see that race and crime edits are only a fraction of what I do here, so I'm far from a single-purpose account. An example of fruitful colloration with others is Somalis in the United Kingdom; Race and crime in the United Kingdom hasn't worked out so bad in the end.

Those DYK hooks were proposed because they were the most interesting. I have a few DYKs (and most of them are on mundane non-controversial topics believe it or not) and they usually get a good number of views. The only issue is that I place too much importance on getting views and interesting hooks when it might be offensive. But simply proposing those hooks is, according to ANI, racist. That seems to me to be twisted. If the articles are non-notable, propose them for deletion; if they're not neutral, explain on the talk page. But simply saying they're evidence of wrongdoing is not helpful.

As explained in the unblock request, there's often a division between how I feel and what I write about, and people will be astounded to know what my personal views are, which I won't go into. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Only so you know, blocked editors aren't often unblocked so they can post to ANI. I've posted a diff to your comments above at ANI, where it will be seen. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Misuse_of_Nazi_images_in_an_essay. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

To Gwen: is there any point? I don't think they'll reverse their decision no matter what I say. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocking is preventative. I'm wondering whether (without prejudice) you'd agree to staying away from all race-related content and commentary? That might allow you to edit without the obvious flash-points?--Scott Mac 15:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't agree with such a restriction because there's been no disruption on my part in articles related to race and crime. I mean, can you see any problems beyond merely writing about it? If I was an SPA ceaseless incivil POV-pusher using poor sources, then yes a restriction may be appropriate. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of the comments on ANI seem beyond the pale. A indef block just for creating an essay? My article creation log evidence of "crystal clear agenda"? That seems like total nonsense. Only a few have challenged those articles in terms of notability and POV, and when they have, I've made steps to address anything. In fact, if you see my early articles and edits, a lot of them were to do with child protection - that's because I care deeply about the issue, in total contrast to how I'm being portrayed. Then I went on to make articles on a range of topics: sports betting, snooker, books, Israeli ambassadors, academics, race and crime. That simply isn't the type of behaviour of someone with an agenda. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

To Iridescent: The source says: "A total of 3,450 homicide incidents were recorded for the period 1 July 1989 to 30 June 2000, involving 3,723 victims and 3,783 offenders (where one has been identified by police). During this 11-year period, Indigenous persons accounted for: • 15.7 per cent of all homicide offenders in Australia (where the offender’s race was recorded—in 4.7% of cases the offender’s race was “unknown”). Yet Indigenous Australians account for only about two per cent of the Australian population (ABS 2000)."

There's no synthesis involved. Maybe a slight re-phrase for accuracy but the meat is the same. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Conviction rates are most often not the same between sundry demographics. The synthesis comes from the way the wording is layed out, which could very easily mislead readers into thinking they've gotten the following unsupported conclusion: "Almost 16% of murders in Australia are committed by native Australians, who make up only about 5% of the population." At its pith that's original research and until you show some understanding of this editorial trap, most editors who look into this are going to have worries. Moreover, the topic area is one of the most volatile and emotionally driven in the encyclopedia, hence the greatest of care must be taken. You have not done this, to where some editors even think you've meant to slip stealth racial vandalism into the encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of the invective is coming from a belief of what my beliefs are, based on editing patterns. I don't think those methods should be used to determine the fate of another editor. People are seeing maliciousness where none exists. This is one reason why controversial topics here will always be poor. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As explained above, there's no agenda. Maybe you have to be slightly insane to write on those topics, but the ones I wrote are not POV pieces. Neither am I tendentious editing them towards my point of view. All I want are well-written, neutral on controversial topics. That's my agenda. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Some topic areas on en.WP are quite weak, which many editors must sooner or later come to grips with. Lots of good faith editors stray from the bounds of policy and get blocked here, as do some bad faith editors. You won't fix any weaknesses in that topic area by sensationalizing it (which, from what I've seen, is the very least you've been doing). Your edits don't seem neutral. Quite otherwise. You might think about agreeing to a voluntary topic ban for now, as brought up by Scott Mac. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If my edits on those topics were not within reason, I'm sure I would be in a lot of edit wars/talk page discussions and appearing in a lot of noticeboards. That hasn't happened. If you see what regular POV pushers get up to in say, climate change, you'll see I've been in nowhere near as much trouble. My average number of edits per race and crime page is about 8 or something--yes, it's really that low. If I was on an agenda, I'm sure I would be hammering it and warring with everyone. It's just this topic is even more controversial than climate change and mainstream politics. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Your fairly sparse editing in the topic area is likely why things slipped through until you put up that last essay. Either way, only since you brought it up, it's gotten you onto a noticeboard now. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case I can't win either way: if I was editing it heavily, I'd be an SPA; if it edit it sparsely, I'm trying to sneak things through. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Christopher Connor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'll learnt my lesson now. I re-affirm that they'll be no more repeat of what led to the block. Because blocks are preventative, there's nothing to be gained by keeping me blocked. I'll be extra careful not to do anything that will antagonise people. I think people have got the wrong impression and have joined together some unrelated stuff. I can't (voluntarily) agree with the topic ban because there's been little or no disruption on my part, none of the behaviours in those articles that generally lead to topic bans (long-term POV-pushing and edit-warring etc.), so I think that would be extreme and not productive. The block wasn't for anything to do with those articles, so the topic ban wouldn't solve the problem - it's my assurances that will. If the community decides to place it anyway, I'll of course have no choice but to comply. People may be still thinking something isn't quite right ("being coy") - why would someone mix in perfectly valid contributions with some poisonous creations? There's more to this but it would require going into personal details. Anyway, I still hope the community can forgive me, because I'd rather be banned than be seen as someone who needs to be on a 'leash'.

Decline reason:

Sorry, the consensus on ANI is clear - that the block should NOT be lifted. Consensus seems also to be that you should not be permitted to edit race-related articles (broadly construed) after the block expires. If you don't accept that, you can protest it on ANI after the block expires. Scott Mac 23:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your essay, 'Wikipedia:BLP zealot'

While I recognise this probably isn't your main concern right now, I just wanted to say that I read this essay after seeing it linked from the AN/I discussion, and think it's seriously problematic. I've added my thoughts on the talk page; when you've been unblocked, feel free to reply there. Robofish (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Robofish, you might be interested in some of the discussion of the essay at the time it was created, which you can read in this talkpage archive, and on the MfD of the original version. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Result of AN/I discussion: Misuse of Nazi images in an essay

The Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion, Misuse of Nazi images in an essay, has been closed [5]. The outcome is as follows:

• The result of the discussion was no consensus for unblocking Christopher Connor (talk · contribs); therefore, the remaining time of the 1-week block will remain in force.
• The result of the discussion was no consensus for this user being topic banned from writing essays.
• The result of the discussion was no consensus for this user being indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia.

--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Sandbox thief

Wikipedia:Sandbox thief, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox thief and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Sandbox thief during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. If you want to participate in the MfD, you can place your reason below, and I can transclude it onto the MfD page for you. I realize that in your current condition that you cannot do much, so I will try to help as best I can. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I have also opened up an MfD Wikipedia:Civility police. The discussion can be found here. Regards, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock help

{{adminhelp}} My block doesn't seem to be expiring correctly. The log says I was blocked on 05:50, 15 November 2010 for 1 week, but the current time is 2131, 22 Nov 2010, and from my calculation that's over a week. Could an admin have a look and see what the problem is? Christopher Connor (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the autoblock of your IP, so you should be able to edit now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification of ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The change on the alleged Jewish Lobby

1- Please define what "consensus" consists of, and I will get to it.

2- Please show me the consensus when the word "alleged" was added to the description.

Thank you

MexicanWizz (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC) MexicanWizz

It's usually agreement on talk pages. There's a short section here which you should contribute to if you disagree. Valenciano (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) There's a page here about consensus, see WP:CONSENSUS. Three editors reverted your change so you can take that as consensus being against your position. In those cases, it's best to start a discussion on the talk page on why your change should stand, preferably bringing sources to the table. Nobody removed the bit you did, so we could assume it had consensus to stay. Also, this edit summary isn't the best way to encourage others to see your point of view. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Answer to edit summary

Answer to this edit summary: Because it looked funny with "...". Didn't know they are necessary. Sorry. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That's how all DYKs are formatted so it doesn't make sense to change it for one particular page. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleting text in Ashkenazi Jews

Yeah, thanks for reminding me what I did... I guess? Those "kinds" of statistics not being controversial is, in of itself, controversial. Not that I care enough to go and argue for this (since most crazed editors on that article would just pretend not to understand), but a lot of these "Ashkenazi Jew" statistics are treating an ethnic group like its a religious group, since almost no censuses actually have "Ashkenazi Jew" as an option under "ethnicity." The 5 mil number being used for the Ashkenazi Jewish American population is just a study-less "guesstimate" and some random article really isn't the best source to have for that. Like I said though, don't really care. Put it back if you like. I figured having no sentence is better than having a misleading one. Bulldog123 13:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of them, but I'm not sure I want to be involved in those cases. There's people with strong and narrow views on both sides, and a massive disconnect between policy and practice, and seemingly nobody interested in reconciling them. Because of that, arguments there are going to be fairly strangled. People will have to argue from scratch: they'll need to say why this sentence of policy should take precedence over another line of policy, and how this bit of a guideline isn't adhered to, and should be either changed or stricter enforcement put in, people misapplying policy etc. There's people wanting to delete all ethnicity-based lists (which should take place elsewhere, not in individual AfD discussions) and people wanting to keep them; some of both sides seem to be totally ignoring the list (and sources) in question. It's a mess, basically. Also, even though I think your comment is neutral, and I voted to keep one list but nominated to delete another (so hopefully neutral recipient), I think it may be best to not make these posts because people are only going to use it against you. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Completely understand. No worries -- this was, as stated, just an FYI. Your comment was prescient--the only reason that I made the notices to all AfD !voters (both keep and delete, as you are) was that an editor had suggested that only the keep !voters had been notified. This neutral comment to all !voters, on both sides, was intended to address that cloud of suspicion he had raised. But you were correct in how certain editors might react to a neutral message sent even-handedly to all similarly situated editors. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3#Valeri Lilov

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3#Valeri Lilov. Cunard (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Christopher Connor. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee)/archive1.
Message added 01:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Mark Miodownik

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry XMAS (2010)

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png		Merry XMAS (2010)
		Armbrust is wishing you a Merry Christmas! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Yuletide, Litha, Eid, Mōdraniht, Diwali, Hogmanay, Wren's Day, Hannukkah, Kwanzaa, Lenaia, Festivus, Jonkonnu, or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May this find you in good health, good spirits, good company, and good finances. If any of these be missing, may God see fit to restore you in good time. Best regards! Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

2004 European Open (snooker)

Just a quick note to say that I've reviewed your GA application for 2004 European Open (snooker). I've left a couple of minor queries and suggestions, but overall it looks good. Let me know once you've responded to my points and I'll take a look. Miyagawa (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)