Jump to content

User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

I finally figured it out!

It's a sleeping doggie! Every time I came here I was trying and failed to figure out what it was a picture of, and the description wasn't helping me.  :-) — Coren (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the same breed of dog as mine. Actually Bonnie is only half Rhodesian, but her temperament is fully consistent with the breed (with all the good and bad things that implies). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of ban appeal

Hi. In case you are unaware, GoRight (talk · contribs) has made an appeal to BASC which has been forwarded to the Community for discussion. I am notifying you as you participated in the ban proposal (which was enacted and is now being appealed); you would have some awareness of the context which led to the measure being imposed. Your input would be appreciated at the discussion: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#GoRight ban appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see NYB has told us to stop wasting our breath (though not in those exact words, what with NYB being a genuinely nice guy). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ocean acidification misunderstandings with chemistry, carbon, and the usage of organic and inorganic ...

How do I get an editor who understands the difference between organic (carbon in molecule) and inorganic in Chemistry, and "organic" and inorganic"'s other current means in the article Ocean acidification. Two editors are editing the article inaccurately to say "inorganic carbon cycle", which is impossible as a carbon cycle would have carbon in some molecules. Is there a list of editors to call-in who understand this? If you don't know, do you know who might? 99.43.139.176 (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It is common to separate the oceanic carbon cycle into an organic cycle and an inorganic cycle. So there is indeed such a thing as the "inorganic carbon cycle"; see e.g., here. The two don't strictly correspond to "organic" and "inorganic" in terms of organic and inorganic chemistry but it's a convenient shorthand. For a reasonably accessible overview you can try here. Hope this helps. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Qoheleth

Regarding your comment in the unban discussion, I don't believe that Arbcom think of themselves as very powerful. What you should be looking for is a change in policy, which needs hearts and minds. I assumed you knew this -- you are after all the author of the celebrated User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration. Your account has many realistic details, but I think you may not have fully taken note of the caution that limits their actions. I believe the Arbcom would adjust their behavior if the community changed their attitude regarding the things that User:Tom harrison/concerns mentions. EdJohnston (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. But I don't really know what motivates them, and suspect that each arbitrator has their own motivations. They sometimes remind me of teenage boys: individually they can be engaging conversationalists and can surprise you with their insights, but as a group they can make a real mess. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
There are usually one or two Arbs in a given cohort who leave me shaking my head and wondering how any one human being can be so lacking in common sense. But as a group, good sense usually prevails. Since at least 2008, there has been a majority of sane people on the Committee. But I can't be too critical - I think they have an impossible job, and I don't envy it at all. In a best-case scenario, 50% of the community will criticize their stance on a given issue. In more typical scenarios, nearly 100% find some fault in their actions. MastCell Talk 04:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Anything to stop User:Arthur Rubin from deleting other's User Talk?

Anything to stop User:Arthur Rubin from deleting other's User Talk? User:Arthur Rubin (wp:Arthur Rubin) continues to hide other's Talk, this time on User Talk:Zodon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zodon&diff=429845197&oldid=429841834) ... on March 30th 2011 it was User talk:Granitethighs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Granitethighs&diff=prev&oldid=421531277 ) and User talk:OhanaUnited ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OhanaUnited&diff=421531280&oldid=421528249 ) 99.19.42.89 (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not look in any detail, but superficially those seem like obvious violations of WP:TPG. You can report it to your friendly local admin or to the local nuthouse for further action. Be aware that if you do so your own editing will also come under scrutiny. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
After Trusting but verifying, Admin Arthur Rubin has been found a disingenuous communicator. Only Mr. Rubin's actions speak (Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin), not his Talk. 99.190.85.26 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
If of interest, more ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Large_Cities_Climate_Leadership_Group&diff=432283159&oldid=432278426 99.181.140.6 (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Read WP:TALK. Basically any editor can remove edits on talkpages if they aren't germane to improving the article. Most editors don't do this to other more established editors, but IPs come under greater scrutiny. Can I recommend you get an account? And also view talkpages as a place to discuss how to make an article a better place. Shot info (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Come on big boy

Don't let the bozos get you down William M. Connolley (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear WMC, I trust you're not discussing anything anticlimatic.
By a remarkable coincidence, I've noticed some edits which seem to have caused distress, and have tried to overcome unfortunate confusion. As a complete non-expert, it's entirely possible that I've got it wrong. Such is the way of the Wiki :-/ . . Randy from Boise, talk 18:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I was merely commenting on Boris's homepage edit; I'm afraid I'm unable to comment on your edit William M. Connolley (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, just me jumping ahead. . . Randy from Boise, talk 19:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

OMG see #5. Good to see you editing again, anyhow. MastCell Talk 16:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hah. I'm not really here, I just stick my nose in the tent once in a while to make mischief. BTW I assume you've seen the Purloined Letters? No real surprises there; for the most part it simply confirms prior observations and inferences. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. It's surprising how unsurprising the contents are. It turns out that people behave in private pretty much exactly as you'd predict based on their on-wiki behavior. I would say that after glancing at the leaked emails, I gained a bit of additional respect for some Arbs whom I already respected, and lost some respect for people whom I'd already pretty much ceased to respect anyway. The irony, of course, is that the closest real-world parallel is "Climategate". There aren't any bombshells in the emails, just a few people talking more candidly than they do in public, but some people feel the need to manufacture a scandal because it serves their agendas. MastCell Talk 03:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Wikipedia:Verifiability hasn't been established in regards to Beaver's role. The citation provided was a circular link to another Wikipedia page. Before you use Wikipedia as an internal reference, you might want to look the the following article: WP:CIRCULAR. Please discuss further changes on the article's discussion page first to avoid potential misunderstandings. The Three revert rule, WP:3RR, applies to everyone.

regards, -- User:LeeUSA (talk) 30 June 2011 � Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeUSA (talk " contribs) 04:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but how exactly does "Films in Review, Volume 28, Number 5, May 1977, pp. 265�284" correspond to a "link to another Wikipedia page"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The reference was prefixed with Jim Beaver, Jim Beaver's reference makes a circular route back to John Wayne's. Nothing supports the reason why Jim Beaver is cited on John Wayne's page at all. LeeUSA (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please come back

Please don't retire! Yeah, I messed up the lede on greenhouse effect, yeah I didn't read the whole article before trying to edit the Lede. Am I an intentional Randy, or did I make an honest mistake that I feel bad about? If you leave now, you won't know the answer to this. Believe it or not, my intention though misguided was to de-Randyize that Lede. It lacked citations, and it said something contrary to what I thought I knew.... and since I've read a ton of science oriented MSM on the issue since the 80s I falsely concluded the unsupported statement (real greenhouses vs atmosphere) was crap. Well, I was surprised to learn I was wrong. The three graduate degreed and climate conscious friends (experts in other research fields) I asked said the same... they too were surprised to learn about this distinction. Hopefully you can cut me some slack.... something so surprising despite an effort to be well read for a layman, with no citations, seemed like a Randy like attempt at disinformation. I edited it incorrectly, but the result (thanks to corrections by D.S.) is much improved.

Please come back! The climate pages need your input and I try hard to admit mistakes and clean up messes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@ NewsAndEventsGuy: Oops, sorry I've been a bit sarky here, but I now appreciate from looking into this a bit further you've been acting in good faith to try to improve climate related articles with due weight to mainstream views. We all have misunderstandings at times, and willingness to accept that and learn from it means you're not following the Randy pattern. It's great to get expert input, but unrealistic to expect a lot of time from people with professional careers in the topic area. There are other very knowledgeable editors, and I'm sure that with your assistance we'll all be able to maintain and improve articles on this subject area. That includes rank amateurs like me! . . dave souza, talk 18:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Stay away for a good long time - you'll be all the better for it. Tom Harrison Talk 01:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you back tovarish. Babakathy (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wot no fucking kittiez?

DeathStar
We love you Boris! Return and lead us to the Glorious Future. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting you should mention teh kittehs. Though I haven't yet been able to make heads or tails of the instructions, it turns out this wonderful new feature that the Central Committee has foisted upon us is customizable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes indeed, it is practically begging to be sabotaged William M. Connolley (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Try this in your vector.js: 
$.wikiLoveOptions.types.kitten = null;
But remember that every time you set a wikiLove type to null, God kills a kitten. MastCell Talk 03:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Abstracts

Per your comment here, I wonder if you'd care to elaborate. As someone coming at this from the opposite end wrt experience and education, I'm rather keen to learn and correct any mistakes I've made. I'm also interested if you have any comments that would improve WP:MEDRS. Colin�Talk 07:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Speaking as someone who actually writes papers and abstracts, reviews articles, and edits journals, the conversation above blows my mind." I do all these things too as it happens. So what blows you mind? The comment is not helpful unless we have some idea of what you find stupid, brilliant, bizarre - or whatever it may be. Paul B (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Perceptive user page

If I were an actual wiki-lawyer, I would refer my clients to: User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration. Cool Hand Luke 21:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully current arbs will also read [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you collecting? [2] is good, too William M. Connolley (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edit for Astrology

I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.

The proposal is here.

Thanks, -- Zac � talk! 15:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia Review

True it is that the egregious Wikipedia Review exists but if we ever get to a situation when it is regarded as the standard by which acceptable discourse is judged, then we are lost. However your mention of it does prompt the recollection that JzG can now see what exactly I was writing about him in private. I was rather hoping that after, on Arbcom, playing Severus Snape to his Harry Potter, I might get some recognition. I don't expect to find he has named his child after me, but I do at least hope not to be inaccurately attacked on Twitter. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Neckbrace

Well of course he's a sock. Unfortunately, I've only been editing the Astrologogy article for a week or so myself, so I can't associate him with anybody. There's not a lot we can do about it, except watch. If he's been blocked before, he'll eventually make the same mistakes and we'll be able to get him blocked again. Until then, be vigilant! Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Incentives

Come on, you should come back to editing. Look at it this way: if we don't keep up the quality of Wikipedia's climate-change articles, we're going to hurt all of those climate skeptics who copy them without attribution. You don't want to make them look bad, or worse, make them do their own writing, do you? :P MastCell Talk 23:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Toxic Triad?

You mentioned that on WT:V, so made me curious to find out what it means (in Wikipedia context), but there doesn't seem to be any essay or the like on it... [[User:Have m�rser, will travel|Have m�rser, will travel]] ([[User talk:Have m�rser, will travel|talk]]) 00:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this. "Verifiability, Not Truth." The 'toxic triad' label is my own invention. Pretty clever, huh? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It seemed to me a bit overstated, until I read this. [[User:Have m�rser, will travel|Have m�rser, will travel]] ([[User talk:Have m�rser, will travel|talk]]) 08:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Free as a Bird" proposed lede change

FYI, there is a vote taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. � GabeMc (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Jimbo agrees with you about something

[3] Cardamon (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that truth matters - wow. And how sad that it needs to be said William M. Connolley (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
You're obviously new around here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Ha! It's saddening and maddening, isn't it? The whole "verifiability, not truth" thing was originally intended to keep a lid on fringe crackpots by politely explaining that their Truth wasn't the only way to look at reality. Now, it's used as a bludgeon to include all manner of craziness—we have to treat the latest cold fusion scamscheme as a credible possibility because a Swedish tech writer (who usually reviews cellular phones) got suckered into printing stories about a crazyeccentric old Italian inventor who's on his third green-energy company. Argh. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Astrology

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[4]]. Thank you!Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Disgusted and/or amused

I heard "(The Angels Wanna Wear My) Red Shoes" on the radio today and it reminded me the quote you used to have on your userpage. Are you ever coming back or what? MastCell Talk 05:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, I was just thinking about Elvis C. over the weekend and how I should reacquaint myself with some of his better stuff. Anyway, I never exactly left. I rarely do content work because it's not much fun; even in uncontroversial topics I'm just not that interested in contributing to this place. Once in a while I make a comment on something if I think it's truly important. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Page move

AnomieBOT kept trying to date the maintenance tags since your talk page had become an article after your move. It worked. Please don't do that again. — Coren (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So it didn't realize that this was still my talk page? Sorry, I thought the software was more "clever" than that (or whatever the appropriate technical term is). Thanks for moving it back. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't really your talk page anymore, it was the article your talk page redirected to. Trying to guess if something that was moved to article space was a draft of some description or just happened to have been someone's talk page is beyond the capabilities of a bot (and got this human confused for a bit while I tried to figure out what that odd "article" was and where in blazes it came from).  :-) — Coren (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
C'mon Boris. I think you enjoyed your brief appearance in the limelight, away from the plebeian drabness of userspace. Dr.K. �ogos�raxis 04:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
It's too bad it didn't work out as planned. I thought it would be nice if we could give our user pages fun and imaginative names instead of always bland, gray User talk:Random_Wikipedian type names. So, this implies that the only way the software knows which space a page belongs to is its name? I had guessed that the names of pages were just aliases to the actual thing (sort of like symbolic links in Linux) and that there was some sort of underlying structure that the software used to identify types of pages and their relationships. But apparently not. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
No need to explain Boris, but just in case, full disclosure: I was just joking. And I agree with your comment about the drabness of userspace. It would be nice if from time to time we got a vacation from all this "user:this" and "user:the other" to something simpler and less forced. I actually enjoyed the title of your brief userpage. Alas it was not to last. Now if we only petitioned the devs... I guess I must be day-dreaming. Take care. Dr.K. �ogos�raxis 05:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

clarification request

I'm not following you here [[5]] -- I don't know if you're suggesting I'm intentionally misrepresenting Hans? Gerardw (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it was intentional. What often happens is that people are so wrapped up in their own view that they jump to a conclusion without actually reading and understanding what the other person is saying. If you re-read what Hans actually said (the words themselves) it's not what you imputed him to say. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to impute he was saying that, more that the brevity of his statement seemed to imply that...however, as my comment was obviously ambiguous, I've restated it. Gerardw (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
"the brevity of his statement seemed to imply that..." yes, that's precisely where we get into trouble. My experience on Wikipedia has taught me that it's usually best to interpret people's words as literally as possible without reading anything into them. (The exception is arbcom, who give us no choice but to try and read the tea leaves.) I don't always follow my own advice, so if I screw up please call me out. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

alienated from political participation

Usual English usage indeed! User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Not great but the best I can do on the fly. I don't know much about the topic and am just trying to smooth out the language a little. The article often reads like -- well, like Russians trying to write in English. If you want to help out that would be great. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Alienation is a word seldom used in English and nearly universally misunderstood, both in its Marxist theoretical sense and in its popular use. "Frozen out of the political process" which I had used, of course has its own problems. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Just try "excluded from the political process". No Marxist overtones or invocation of anomie. :] MastCell Talk 20:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not realize "alienation" was such an unusual term, but then I graduated from a college founded by a guy who wrote about "certain unalienable rights." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Damn right

I totally agree. See also my comment here. Prioryman (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: returning the "favor"

I think this was a bit harsh [6] and unfair to Risker; the evidence indicates she carefully reviewed the situation and made what I consider to be a very good decision in blocking those editors. Gerardw (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. Like many I often will evaluate a situation in light of prior experience when there is little else to go on. Thanks for bringing it up -- I will think about it some more, but I did not make this statement lightly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't speak for this particular situation, but you're right to say that in some contentious cases Arbcom has indeed issued "political" sanctions - presumably intended to show that it's not taking sides. Prioryman (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Burnt-out Wikipedians

Category:Burnt-out Wikipedians, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Biker Biker (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for publicizing the category. Its membership has now increased considerably. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for a new category to add to my page, Boris. Also, thanks for introducing me to the term "revanchist imperialism"; I think I'm supposed to frown on what you did there and give you a templated warning of some kind. But :) instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I took care of it for you (see below) so your conscience is now clear. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2012

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't do it again, or I shall be forced to escalate to a {{uw-dttr4im}}. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Sending this message from beyond the grave? NW (Talk) 19:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
NW, just because you think its 2011 doesn't mean the rest of us will take your word for it. The standard for inclusion is verifiably, not truth. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Just thought you should know...

I literally LOL'd at this. What a farce. Basalisk inspect damageDberate 06:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cooperation

I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. SilverserenC 01:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I just noticed this. Thanks for the offer, but I don't usually take part in things like Wikiprojects. See the Groucho rejoinder. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
That's fine. :3 I'd appreciate it though if you'd remember the Wikiproject and if there's ever a situation that would be appropriate for us to work with, mention us in the discussion or directly let us know. SilverserenC 05:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please never archive this talk page

Obey without question above instruction from competent authority. Reading here is cheaper than going to the free (burg-whah) library. When returning, will read again with complete lack of recognition; consolation of being of no-mind. If understood correctly, this comment is defective of import, but we knows, secretly. NewbyG ( talk) 17:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Email

Check your email, Awickert (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

{{unblock|goddammit open up this back door jamb}}

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

goddammit open up this back door jamb

Accept reason:

Per note in block log Guettarda (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Wrt what you've written elsewhere, please see.[7] Mathsci (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper Straw Poll

There is currently a Straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

Hello this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

have a laugh

so you said, I can imagine it actually happened. In a Munich museum, I watched a film last Monday, artists Jean Tinguely and his wife Niki de Saint Phalle buying large pieces of everyday stuff in Las Vegas, placing it in the desert and make it transform in carefully planned consecutive explosions, Study for an End of the World No. 2 (1962) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, I fall on the floor in the face of such magnificence. That is art, with a capital T. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration

Comrade Boris, the committee which is the subject of your Guide talks back at User talk:Newyorkbrad#Per your request. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad is a grown man; if he has a question, he is perfectly capable of asking himself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

In my defense

I'm desperately avoiding a giant pile of real life work. It's not like I enjoy it here or anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I bet that's what you tell all the girls. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

One for your collection

Ha. You haven't got one of these.

Incidentally... I've often wondered... are you the harvester in a short brigade, or a short man in a brigade of harvesters? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That is very cool. User:Dennis Brown is a good guy; he should be on arbcom instead of some of the folks on there now. (I hasten to add that others on arbcom are decent and competent.) Alas, I would not qualify for being blocked under those criteria as I've almost stopped creating content. In the past 6 months I have made exactly ten (10) edits to article space.
Regarding your query, which is one of the deepest questions in the minds of American youth. I will try to get in touch with Philip Proctor to ask. I am proud to say that I am a short man (as is Herr Prof. Dr. Proctor) and yet other possibilities cannot be discounted. Who are we to say? I mean who are we?
Finally, I shall turn the tables and put a question to you: Which of the Molesworth books must one read first? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it would have to be Down with skool, for me, though I'm not an expert William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Ha, WmC is a wet and a wede, tho prolly rite Agane, sa souza, talk 09:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Korrekted, chiz chiz, . dave souza, talk 10:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hav found my copy, and this may pose translation difficulties unless annotated copies are available. First published 1958, and it shows. Thus, p. 10 "this is st custard's our skool taken with my brownie", technology which may predate your experience; p. 26, "Peason sa he once found 2/6 in the lining", not 2/6 as you colonials might expect, but 2/6d meaning a half crown, an obsolete coin referred to in slang as a half dollar from a mythical time when a USD was worth five bob. And so on. These just came up at a quick glance, don't know if there are more. You may be well up in this sort of ancient history, in which case my over-pedantic apologies. . . dave souza, talk 23:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Daveandaustin

Actually has been previously blocked and warned - and blanked his talk page to remove the warnings <g>. I am a strong believer in WP:BITE but this case does not fit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Precious

ART
Thank you for looking at "details, nuance, or context" of issues, for your pocket guide, for appreciating the magnificence of ART, 'tis the season - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (21 August 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

message now in br'erly thanksgiving (or should I say Halloween?) style ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you know that you, #290 of my Pumpkin Sky prize, were the first of many in that style? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Two years ago, you were the 290th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

An image for your handwritten note --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I happened to read again your guide to arbitration, had forgotten too much, filed amendment yesterday ;) - I wonder how teh case had developed if I had read it before? DYK ... peace? - I was pleased to find my first entry on this talk still in place. Did you see an image by the user on top of my talk? I joined another project, after Freedom of speech ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 290 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Five years ago now. Music written with your name, DYK? 500 years Reformation, 5 years reformation. - I commented in a request for arbitration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Comrade Gerda. You are truly a jewel of this community. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Comrade Boris, you make me blush again ;) - Six years now, and no end of reformation needed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Now Gerda, no need for blushing! We are all grown ups here. Well, some are grown ups who act like children, but that's another matter. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Tactics

Wondering what you mean by certain tactical considerations to voting.? NE Ent 11:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In any election, plebiscite or similar procedure, there typically exist a range of possible outcomes amongst those from which the elector may make his or her specification, some of which may be considered relatively more desirable and others of which may be considered relatively more undesirable from the perspective of a given individual who is contemplating how his vote shall be cast. In such instances, after due reflection, various tactics, methods, and stratagems may be taken into consideration so as to maximize the likelihood that one's vote may contribute to effecting the optimal outcome that one seeks to eventuate from amongst the aforementioned possible outcomes. Hope that clears things up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
One such tactic undoubtedly is conveying to one's comrades optimal technique for maximizing the desired outcome; as all voting systems are imperfect [8], it may not be obvious to bourgeois what strategies are best -- after all free education is part of the policy Comrade Boris professes, is it not? NE Ent 02:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I am no longer infected. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Comrade, you should not worry due to this notice since it is clear you edit Wikipedia at least once every three years. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed such counterrevolutionary incitements deserve no attention. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Request comment

Your input would be appreciated here. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Tim Ball". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot�operator�/�talk 01:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

He Lives!

Back from the dead? It's great to see you :) Guettarda (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC) [Burnt offerings duly laid]

+1 William M. Connolley (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Be sure to kneel as you type. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, what the hell happened with images? The only reason I came here was to fix incorrect copyright info on some images from our website. But when I click an image it just makes an enlarged view of the image instead of taking me to the page that lists permissions and so forth. It took forever to figure out how to find the permissions statement so I could fix it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Dunno. Its crap, isn't it? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Just in time! There's an arbcomm case about it, just waiting for your input. :) Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Delightful. One-stop shopping for two of my favorite parts of Wikipedia -- Arbcom and WMF. I'll dive right in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk " contribs " logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Belatedly welcome back

Hi, Boris. I see you returned in August, sorry I was so slow to notice it (just now on Eric Corbett's page). It's delightful to see you! Bishonen | talk 23:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC).

Indeed. Good to see you (read you?) back! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I second (or third) that, belatedly. You're one of the good ones; we're glad to have you back. bobrayner (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


Wikipedia's standard of reliable fact, "more likely than not"?

You recently closed discussion on the topic "Unexpectedly low degree of certainty in medical examiner findings" at the reliable sources page.

I have been accused there of forum shopping despite me pointing out that it was Dyrnych that changed forum the first two times, not me. I only followed. But then I did change forum once because I wanted to make a proposal to change the reliable sources guidelines, so I changed the forum to the one I thought was appropriate for that discussion.

There is an important issue at steak. The editors appear to think that facts found by an expert to a probability of "more likely than not", or at least to an unknown probability, are sufficiently reliable to establish a fact in Wikipedia's voice. "More likely than not" is an absurdly low standard for establishing a fact, and if that opinion of Wikipedia editors stands, it will seriously harm the reputation of Wikipedia. There is also a BLP issue involved. The current Eric Garner page states flatly as fact that Pantaleo used a chokehold prohibited by his employer on Garner. Pantaleo is at risk of losing his job if it is decided that he did in fact use a chokehold. I actually think he probably did at least a bit of choking, but nobody really knows, except possibly the medical examiner, who's evidence and reasoning is secret, and whose degree of certainty is unknown. There are many cites of secondary sources reporting the ME's finding that a chokehold was partly the cause of death, but I think there are few if any secondary sources cited that state flatly as a fact that a chokehold was used, rather than just reporting the ME's findings without comment on the correctness of them. Reliable secondary sources report many opinions without any implication that the opinions are reliable.

I suspect that most of the opinions against mine on this topic are from editors from the Eric Garner debate, with the agenda of preventing anything from getting into the article that might cast doubt on their chosen interpretation of the Eric Garner events. These editors strongly avoid answering reasonable questions, like: Is "more likely than not" sufficient to establish a reliable fact in the voice of Wikipedia? I on the other hand, answer their questions freely, and defend both sides on the issue. Although admittedly the article was already much more in inclined toward the guilt of the officer, consequently few edits in that direction were required to bring balance.

So I would like to ask if you would at least open the discussion for another response I'd already taken the time to write, to many of the latest questions and accusations of forum shopping. Or if not re-open the topic, at least pre-approve me just adding one more response. It kind of seems like it might be fair to let the loser get in the last word. It's not that I particularly care to get in the last word, I just wanted to address those particular arguments, especially the literally bold accusation of forum shopping, the supposed unworkability of my proposal, and the apparent fact that none of the Wikpedia guidelines give guidance about what level of probability is needed to establish the reliability of a fact.

I was going to issue a request for comment this evening to draw in a wider range of disinterested editors. I am still going to if it is not prohibited.

There seems to be a problem with the quality of discussion on the reliable sources talk page when none of the editors will even state clearly whether they agree or disagree with important propositions. It is very hard to come to a meeting of the minds when people wont tell you what they're thinking on the critical issues, apparently because they think that might lose them the argument. I'd like to understand the errors of my thinking if I can. Since I never got a clear answer from any of them about the key issues, I'd like to ask you:

Do you think "more likely than not" is an acceptable degree of probability to establish a fact in Wikipedia's voice? Do you think that medical examiners MAY be using the "more likely than not" standard to establish their findings? Do you think we should assume they're using a higher standard absent proof that they're using a lower standard? Or do you think medical examiner's findings of fact are reliable even if they are using the "more likely than not" standard?

Here is the response I was about to post:

I wasn't aware that we were supposed to notify all the other editors of a discussion on an issue elsewhere. This is the first time I've been involved in a discussion on multiple Wikpedia forums. Furthermore, I thought that you not only knew but had contributed to this discussion on this page. Checking, I see I was mistaken about that.
Again, in regards to forum shopping, I only changed the forum once, to what I understand to be the proper forum for discussing my proposed change to the RS policy. The two forum changes before that were by Dyrnych, for reasons I'm not questioning the justification for. I don't believe I need any defense for changing the forum once to the proper forum for my proposal.
The recommendations of the medical examiners guide might not be a "standard", but that is irrelevant. They show that a very significant number of medical examiners, including the leadership of a national organization, MAY make their findings to a "more likely than not" personal standard, especially in non homicide cases. Any particular ME may be using these recommendations or some other standard of their own (or rule of thumb of their own, if you have a problem with the word standard). We don't know. These recommendations are a little old, but they don't appear to have been superseded, and we have no reason to think that they have been. It's not like 2002 was back in the dark ages before forensic science was well developed or something. The NYC ME might be using a more rigorous standard. But it would be absurd to suggest that we should just assume that the NYC medical examiner is reliable because he MIGHT be using standards more rigorous than the National Association of Medical Examiners recommends.
Although I quoted from a Guide for Manner of Death Classification, The quote states in part:

"In general, the certifier of death completes the cause-of-death section and attests that, to the best of the certifier�s knowledge, the person stated died of the cause(s) and circumstances reported on the death certificate. It is important to remember that these �facts� only represent the certifier�s opinion and are not written in stone or legally binding." [Bold emphasis added, quotes around "facts" in original]

And further, the paragraph heading the list of degrees of certainty starts out:

"Because the cause and manner of death are opinions..."[emphasis added]

It's true that the next sentence before the list of degrees of certainty turns to talking of manner of death, but I think similar levels of certainty are being used for cause of death as well. It hadn't occurred to me before, but I think examiners use the "more likely than not" standard because it is useful in civil cases. If they can make the determination at least to that level then they probably do, rather than making no determination, because many parties involved may need that determination to that low level, and find it very useful in civil cases, even if it is not highly certain. Another reason I think they find cause of death to "more likely than not" is that perhaps the main purpose of cause of death findings is for statistical purposes. The keepers of the statistics probably want a finding to whatever certainty they can get. I could be wrong. Maybe they make determinations of cause of death to a much higher standard. You can waste your time trying to hunt that down if you like. But until we know or have good reason to believe or assume that a source is using a reliable standard, it would not be reasonable to assume that their facts are reliable. And furthermore, we're not only talking about the factuality of the cause of death finding, we're also talking about the factuality of the manner of death finding. And the cited probabilities bear directly on that issue. If nothing else, we need a warning in the RS policy to prevent editors from citing the manner of death finding as reliable, absent confirmation of degree of certainty. Although in the one particular case of Eric Garner, I think the degree of certainty for the homicide finding is likely beyond a reasonable doubt, or at least very close.
TMCk wrote at Talk:Death of Eric Garner:

"If we'd applied Mindbuilder's standards he/she is arguing here and at RSN, we'd have to rewrite almost every article of the deceased unless their cause of death is verified by several or maybe even thousands of professionals, considering their climate change comparison at RSN. To question the ME (medical examiner) b/c some pundits and other non experts do is blog/forum material and below WP standards (no matter how low I personally perceive those).TMCk (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)"

And Dyrnych wrote at Talk:Death of Eric Garner:

"And that's an excellent point: it's a completely unworkable standard. In Mindbuilder-world, Wikipedia can virtually never state the cause of death of any decedent, which seriously undermines Wikipedia's utility as an encyclopedia. Dyrnych (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)"

There is no difficulty in my proposal. I'm only proposing a minor change. I still recommend reporting the opinions of medical examiners regarding the cause and manner of death, but as a credible opinion with a warning about the unknown probability, rather than a reliable fact.
And I'm not just questioning the ME's findings because the police unions and some pundits do, I'm questioning them because of the recommendations regarding degree of certainty from the National Association of Medical Examiners.
Dyrnych wrote at Talk:Death of Eric Garner:

"I would like you to show me the Wikipedia policy that establishes the degree of confidence necessary in a particular source's methodology for us to report its conclusions as fact."

Incredible! Dyrnych appears to be right! I think I skimmed all the relevant guidelines, and I'm unable to find any Wikipedia policy that establishes the degree of confidence necessary in a particular source's methodology for us to report its conclusions as fact. I guess this is probably a result of our reliance on reliable sources and our expectation that they will follow a good standard of their own. And it may not have occurred to anyone that it needed to be made clear that "more likely than not" is a grossly inadequate standard. The closest I have found is from the WP:NPOVFAQ (which is an essay, not an official policy or even guideline). It states there that a "fact" is "e.g. information ... about which there is no serious dispute" I think a 49% possibility that a fact is wrong leaves ample room for serious dispute. But again, that's just an essay. It is now clear that we need new policy, not just about medical examiners but about sources and the reliability of facts in general. Mindbuilder (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Lord. Boris, what have you done? MastCell Talk 17:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I have done bad things, terrible things, things that someone such as you cannot imagine. The final stage of my punishment will be to regain my admin bit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying you're not an admin now? That doesn't matter. Since you made the judgment to close the discussion, your opinion alone, admin or not, is enough for me to reopen it, unless it is locked somehow. Also, if you have looked at the argument, I'm still curious how you would answer these questions. Few seem to want to answer them directly. If MastCell or others are reading this, I'd be interested in their answers to these questions as well.
Do you think "more likely than not" is an acceptable degree of probability to establish a fact in Wikipedia's voice?
Do you think that medical examiners MAY be using the "more likely than not" standard to establish their findings?
Do you think we should assume they're using a higher standard absent proof that they're using a lower standard?
Or do you think medical examiner's findings of fact are reliable even if they are using the "more likely than not" standard?
I'm planning a request for comment or something this evening. I can't drop it. Then again I was planning it the last couple evenings also, and didn't get to it. What would you recommend I do next, other than drop it? Is a request for comment still allowed after the discussion at reliable sources talk has been closed? Mindbuilder (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
First ask yourself under what conditions you would be willing to drop it. If the answer is "none" or "when I get my way," then things could end very badly for you. (Please note that's not a threat but an observation of what I've seen happen all too often here.) I know from experience how frustrating it can be when things don't go your way on an issue where you feel strongly. But sometimes you have to let it go and move on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A Brigade of Harvesters for you

Pieter Bruegel the Elder- The Harvesters
Charles Angrand - The Harvesters -

Hafspajen (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks more like a platoon, but it's the thought that counts. MastCell Talk 17:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, all these art critics. This one, then?Hafspajen (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The Bruegel one, with its option of cutting a maze in the wheat, reminds me that I forgot to put a Borges story on the syllabus I just finished. Thanks for the reminder. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Hafspajen. The imagery is inspiring, though of course better expressed in socialist realism. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
"Are you sure this is the way to K-Mart?"
SBHB, I thank you for your peacekeeping efforts. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record

I prefer Tina Fey. She is quite attractive, and that mixture of Greek, German, Scottish, and English is spectacular, although it's probably the Greek component that does it for me. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't sell Putin short, though. You can look into his eyes and see his soul, and know that he's famously straightforward and trustworthy. MastCell Talk 18:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Me too!

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Aren't you a bit young to be turning into a cranky old fart? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I resent this agism! I can be a cranky old fart at any age. Also, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:REALLYANAL! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA says:

" Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Any cups of tea around?

I fear I am losing patience. [9]

To answer your question from UT:Jimbo - the main PNAC article was topsy-like by 2005 -- where it showed a lot of "9/11 conspiracy" influence.[10]

Over 41K by May 2007. Including " Signatories or contributors to other significant letters or reports" including folks who appear to have had damn little to do with PNAC at all. COATRACK incarnate. And a cup or two full of 9/11 conspiracy - including giving credence that PNAC orchestrated attacks on the US. "Theologian David Ray Griffin has used this quote to support the conspiracy theory that PNAC members within the Bush Administration were complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

64K by June 2009 [11]. 9/11 rampant. 60 "see also" links.

The new "list" - which is now stated to rightfully include anyone who was even osculant to anything with PNAC as a "member" seems in accord with what the earlier editors appeared to intend - 50% "9/11 conspiracy" and 50% "neocon right-wing conspiracy" <g>.

Cheers. Either some of those folks do not understand why WP:BLP etc. exist, or I am involuntarily channeling Cicero. At least you mat be sure I am consistent on this stuff no matter who is involved. What really worries me is that some editors think that Santayana's advice is non-utile :(. At least theJohann Hari BLP seems finally in some order. Collect (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

new essay

The case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It reminds me of a favorite essay by the great American philosopher Sylvester Stewart. Perhaps you are familiar with it; the first line is especially compelling. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I suspect it is congruent with the Franklin quote that we should not assume our own infallibility <g>. Collect (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

Please note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others has been opened. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A splendid time is guaranteed for all. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Short Brigade Harvester Boris, you have been removed as a party from the American politics 2 arbitration case by an arbitrator. Accordingly, your evidence size limit is now 500 words and 50 diffs. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Impasse

Any advice you can offer about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John#Ayurveda_restriction_violation would be appreciated.—Kww(talk) 00:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think User:John actively supports the alt-med folk. Rather, my perception is that he likes the fact that they are deferential toward him. For my part I have decided to have no interaction with him. The exception is that I will offer evidence if someone files a request that his administrative privileges be revoked. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Please feel free to raise any questionable actions with me at my talk page, Short. --John (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Apologies but I think it best to decline your generous offer. No offense, of course. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Would that evidence be related to the pile I'm gathering about pseudoscience, or is it on unrelated issues?—Kww(talk) 00:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The nature of any evidence I might bring will depend on the nature of the complaint that is brought. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. I'll leave you to get on with your evidence gathering then. Don't forget that the offer is always open. --John (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain, but I think that SBHB began using that picture about the same time that I used it as a thank you card to supporters after my failed third RFA.—Kww(talk) 17:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Workshop post

Hi. Replied here but forgot to ping. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've set up my account not to show pings so no matter. The Traveling Boris (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Expansive

But water above 3.98 �C expands as it warms is entirely *true* :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You public-school types are such smartasses. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shock_Brigade_Harvester_Boris/Archive_4&oldid=1210481100"