User talk:Chris Chittleborough/Archive 2

Space Gamer
Hi Chris!!

I got here via a post you made on the discussion page for "Space Gamer" magazine.

I am a big FASA Star Trek fan. In fact, FASA's "version" of Star Trek is my favorite of all time and has tainted my view of what has come after it for the last 20 years!

Anyway, as a sort of hobby of mine, I started cataloging as many magazine articles for FASA Star Trek that I could find (adventures, gaming support material, even reviews). The list has grown long and I've found quite a few gems over the years. If you'd like, I'd be glad to e-mail you a copy of the list. I've scoured "Challenge", "Stardate", "White Dwarf" and even "Far and Away" and "Voyages SF".

"Space Gamer" has always been a gray area for me; I don't have much info on that title- which happened to be published right smack dab in the heyday of FASA Star Trek! I've dug up at least one issue (issue 77) that had some material in it, but not too much else.

Do you know of a contents listing for "Space Gamer"? How difficult would it be for use to peruse the table of contents to see if there's any pertinent info on FASA Star Trek? As easy as swallowing the sea? LOL!

Anyway, any thoughts and help would be greatly appreciated!

Take care,

Lee (Please respond to FASAfan A T Hotmail.com)

Deceptive message from User:William M. Connolley
-[Trolling removed by CWC]- William M. Connolley 08:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for alleged incivility
Well, you had your warning William M. Connolley 18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not true; see below. CWC

It is an abuse of admin powers to block someone you are in conflict with, as WMC has done.
 * First Unblock-Request Statement

It is a blatant abuse of admin powers to do so without first using at least one of these, or something very similar.

It is a gross abuse of admin powers to permanently block someone who has never been blocked before, with no better reason than the very debatable claim of "incivility".

There is something very wrong with an admin who accompanies the instapermablock message with a lie: I had no warning.

(Whew! It's a good thing I didn't press "Save Page" on my edit to User talk:William M. Connolley.) CWC 22:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I must apologise - the permanent block was an error. I've reset it to 3h as of now, which roughly fits the 8h I originally intended. As for the warning: you're removed it William M. Connolley 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Another lie! There was no warning. Warnings require some sort of conditionality. Even "People who are incivil get blocked" has implicit conditionality. "Please review X" has no conditionality. It is a request, not a warning.
 * Also, WMC's unblock log message is not consistent with the hard-to-believe claim that the permanent block was an error, unless he means it was a tactical error.
 * Nevertheless, I accept WMC's apology.
 * However, I continue to request an unblock, so that my block log will have at least some indication that WMC's blocks are contrary to multiple Wikipedia rules, especially WP:DICK. CWC 23:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris, you are not the only one who thinks that Willy is being a WP:DICK. I support your effort to clear your name. --Br it com 04:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But I'm content to put my explanation on the record (see below) and leave it at that. Cheers, CWC 05:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WMC has reduced the duration of his illegitimate block, but that does not make it legitimate. The original block was way out-of-line regardless of duration, and I would like my block log to have some indication that WMC's blocks are not an accurate assessment of my standing as a Wikipedia editor. Your block has expired, so my understanding is you were just looking for a log entry. While you're correct that WMC shouldn't have blocked an editor he was in a dispute with, my opinion is that the behavior that led to the block warranted one (the 8-hour one, of course, not the indef). The only incivility I can see before the warning was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hockey_stick_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=139335622 Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit], which is listed at WP:CIVIL as profanity directed against another user, though I acknowledge the Aussie vernacular ties might be mitigating (I'm not familiar with Australian vernacular). Simply citing policy as WMC did in the warning is generally acknowledged as not the most effective way to deliver a civility warning, but the response to his warning ("remove pathetic piece of deceptive trolling") was totally inappropriate. It wasn't trolling; and I think that you knew it wasn't trolling when you removed it. I recognize that it's difficult to be hunky-dory with someone who warns you about something during a content dispute, but your reaction was clearly incivil and had the potential to inflame a bad situation. So block endorsed.— Chaser - T 04:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Second Unblock-Request Statement
 * Response from Chaser


 * OK, thanks for that explanation, Chaser.
 * For the record: Actually, I did carefully consider whether WMCs request was trolling. I decided that it was: posting something dishonest and deliberately inflammatory in order to annoy someone. Dishonest? WMC clearly implied that I had made a personal attack, when I have commented only on his conduct, not on his character. He also implied that I had been uncivil; I was completely astonished to find that WMC, an Englishman famed worldwide as a brutal blog warrior, was unable to cope with the word "bullshit" (which is now regularly used on Australian TV, BTW) being applied to a blatantly false statement about core Wikipedia policy: he wrote that a WP:RS was not a RS because it printed statements by Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, both of whom WMC has been trying to discredit for several year now. (Note that once again I am commenting on what WMC wrote, not on WMC himself.) So I still contend that WMC's first edit on this page:
 * was deceptive by implication, to a degree that requires deliberation or gross incompetence,
 * was trolling in any meaningful sense of the term, and therefore
 * was pathetic.
 * Futhermore, I did think about whether my use of those words would drive WMC to blatantly violate several Wikipedia rules. I felt sure he was too adult for that. Shows what I know.
 * (Hmm. Upon revisiting Talk:Hockey stick controversy, I see that I also wrote "WMC, your COI here has overwhelming(sic) your understanding of the basic principles of Wikipedia." Given that WMC has an enormous WP:COI re that article, and has been reduced to meaningless mantras in his futile attempts to deny that COI, I can't help wondering if my use of vernacular was only an excuse. Well, if so, his trolling worked well enough for another admin to endorse his block.)
 * One last point: on reflection, I suspect that admins looking at block logs will take blocks by WMC a lot less seriously than those by other admins.
 * Having put that on the record, I see no need to take this matter any further. CWC 05:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Woops. Arrgh.
I see that user:Chaser left the following message on User talk:William M. Connolley:
 * Blocking during disputes
 * Will, I declined Chris Chittleborough's unblock request because I thought the block was proper, but you can't block users you're in disputes with. The policy is unambigious and ArbCom has indicated the same thing. This is the kind of thing that people get de-sysopped for.--Chaser - T 04:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WMC replied:
 * Thanks for the advice. I certainly wouldn't block a user I was in dispute with - but I'm not in a content dispute with CC William M. Connolley 08:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In reality, the whole incident originated in a content dispute about a statement sourced to Natuurwetenschap & Techniek in Hockey stick controversy. (See Talk:Hockey stick controversy.) Sigh. CWC 09:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bork

 * [This relates to . See especially Talk:Robert Bork.]

Hi Chris. First of all, I don't believe it's acceptable to accuse someone without basis, and especially not to accuse them of defaming, as you have done to me. Nothing in my history of editing comes close to hinting that I would do such a thing.

Second, the three revert rule applies here, even if you think it doesn't. You think it doesn't, presumably, because you think you are correct in the interpretation of what's acceptable policy regarding sources. If you disagree with someone regarding an edit, you discuss it - even if you believe you are in the right (which, newsflash: we all do when we revert...that's the point). The rule clearly states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." It doesn't qualify which kinds of reverts are "acceptable" and which are not; it forbids three. Anyone's history is there on wiki for all to see; we can determine if someone is protecting a darling of their movement or not.

I can understand when someone makes an edit for which they do not provide any source; it is my understanding that in that case - if the edit is potentially controversial - then it gets reverted until it gets sourced. In this case, each time it was sourced, and each time, instead of discussing your concerns about the quality of the source, you simply reverted it. Even when an acceptable source was used, you still chose to revert instead of discuss.

In this case, you appear to be misrepresenting - and hiding behind - wiki's "rules" in order to protect someone you like, and who is (for two completely separate reasons) right now being vilified in the press. You seem to want to avoid any more criticism of Bork, which, unfortunately, is not an acceptable practice here. The item was sourced (secondarily, by the way) by an internationally-recognized news organization, TIME Magazine.

I can help you understand why the wiki policy suggesting secondary sources over primary exists: it's there so that we don't become "the deciders" of what's important in a BLP and what's not. More importantly (and, in my opinion, unfortunately), it's there so that wiki can't be held responsible for what LPs may consider damaging content about themselves. It's pretty much the same reason why it's not OK for "mainstream" news organizations to publish an unsourced rumor about a celebrity, but it is OK for them to publish the fact that someone else published the unsourced rumor.

In any case, if you want to discuss it - and if you want to abide by wiki policy - then please discuss it on the article's talk page. Please stop reverting. Thanks. Info999 14:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Responses:
 * The blp1-n notice I left on User talk:Info999 says "could be regarded as defamatory"; I believe that reporting Judge Walton's alleged comment on Bork et al's brief breaches both the letter and the spirit of WP:BLP.
 * Info999, you might want to take a look at the third bullet point in WP:3RR.
 * I didn't know that Judge Bork was the darling of any movement, let alone those that I belong to. (The "Don't let what happened to Roy Pretlove happen to anyone else" movement has very few ties to American law or lawyers.) The only reason I visited that article was to check out the phrase "to bork"; I saw some obvious problems and tried to fix them.
 * Actually, BLP aims for a far higher standard than "so we can't be sued". I think that's great, and I'm just trying to uphold that high standard.
 * I'm afraid I'll keep reverting unless someone provides an acceptable source (not a blog, especially not a Wonkette blog) and shows that reporting whatever Judge Walton said does not violate any of our rules. Info999, if you're not happy with that, we'll take it to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Cheers, CWC 15:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments
Sorry, it was a mistake (I'm not sure what happened).
 * To err is human. When computers are involved, little mistakes are often greatly amplified. No problem. One little mouse click in the wrong place can make a real mess, because we programmers often don't think carefully enough about CHI issues. CWC 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Amir Taheri
Based on suggestions from other Wikipedians, I think our Amir Taheri "disagreements" should be reconciled with compromise language. Are you ammenable to negotiating mutually agreeable compromise language that at least describes the criticisms that have been made against Taheri? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyisnotbad (talk • contribs)


 * Nyisnotbad, you are quite free to propose cited, balanced criticisms at Talk:Amir Taheri, and always have been. But please read up on core Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP, WP:NOR (especially the "undue weight" rule), and WP:RS first. CWC 17:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree there should be compromise language. Language which at least acknowledges that there are people who claim Taheri is a hack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.26.195 (talk • contribs)


 * Please suggest a compromise. I recommend you and your allies start a discussion on Talk:Amir Taheri. (Clicking here will add a new section to that talk page.) CWC 06:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

From someone who is a little obsessive about Michelle Malkin
God damn you suck ass. Can you have your head any further up Malkins ass?

Your POV is all over that article.

The article does "flow" better if you are a Malkin fan


 * This remarkable contribution to elevated discourse comes from user, who almost certainly edits Wikipedia under a registered username. Isn't that special? CWC 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to self
"If you strike this article down, it will only bring negative reputation upon Wikipedia, & maybe even worse." — from this AfD. I just couldn't let that go unnoted. CWC 05:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Peratt
I appreciate the help you've given me on Anthony Peratt. I don't quite know what the rationale behind what some of the others are saying, but I'm glad you brought up the idea of deleting the article. --Mainstream astronomy 20:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help
 * The article may meet WP:PROF though, if someone knowledgeable in the field finds evidence of notability. CWC 10:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've de-prodded Anthony Peratt and created an WP:AFD-entry here: Articles for deletion/Anthony Peratt. I think you're right that this doesn't belong, but suspect that its a close enough call that the article deserves a full discussion. Regards, semper fictilis 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * De-prodded
 * Good move. I should have done that. CWC 10:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

From Eddy Quicksall
I was reading the SCTP page. I notice the following statement:


 * If an SCTP connection is set up to carry, say, ten phone calls with one call per stream, then if a single message is lost in only one phone call, the other nine calls will not be affected. To handle ten phone calls in TCP, some form of multiplexing would be required to put all ten phone calls into a single byte-stream. If a single packet for phone call #3 is lost then all packets after that could not be processed until the missing bytes are retransmitted, thus causing unnecessary delays in the other calls.

That is not very accurate because for TCP you would just open 10 connections. You would not need any multiplexing and would not need to put all calls into a single byte-stream. Lost packets and retransmissions on one connection do not effect other connections.

I don't know much about SCTP yet but it appears to me the advantage, for the above example case, would be that SCTP could drop a message if there is an error and hence keep the conversation going. But with TCP the conversation (only that connection) would stall until the retransmission was finished. Since it is voice then a short dropout would be anoying but workable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddyq (talk • contribs)


 * I'm no expert, but as I understand it, SCTP has several advantages over multiple TCP connections.
 * SCTP can transmit data from several channels in one IP packet.
 * Setting up a TCP connection (three-way handshake) is more expensive than adding a channel to a SCTP connection.
 * The multi-home feature of SCTP is a significant advantage in some circumstances, notably telephony.
 * I suspect TCP connections tie up more kernel memory in each endpoint than SCTP channels do.
 * Having message boundaries is sometimes important.
 * I hope this helps. Cheers, CWC 11:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Alger Hiss
This article is at an impasse over whether a majority of scholars believe he engaged in espionage for Stalin. I think fair-minded readers who follow the lengthy discussion on this issue would find that the sources in support of this are enormous in number and solid in reliability. That hasn't stopped one or two Wiki users from claiming that there is a "consensus" of Wiki users who hold otherwise. If you have the time to review this case I think it would help resolve the impasse.Bdell555 05:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Zero Critical
Please reconsider your decison to link to the Underdogs entry for this game as the The Underdog entry contains a possible copyvio. ShakespeareFan00 12:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So it does. I added the HotU link for the description, but we can live without it. Thanks for deleting that link. Cheers, CWC 01:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that a recent debate about the deletion of the hotu template resulted in it being kept, and therefore it can be used. Use with discretion, of course, and particularly for those games that are freeware, or where the HOTU page has moer information than the Wikipedia page.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for the clarification. Geo Swan 11:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

another thanks
Chris,

Thanks for uploading that Weekly Standard image. How did you do it? All I could find on the Web site were pdf files. I just wish that the editor who removed the previous magazine cover would have alerted people on the talk page. That way we could have done the little work that needed doing on the image page and kept it without the extra bother (apparently fair-use images need someone to type in something like "Hey, this is in fact a fair-use image that is being used to illustrate an article on this particular subject" -- despite the fact that the template already says so). Anyway, thanks, and I'd love to know how you got the image. Noroton 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.
 * Most PDF readers can extract images from PDF files. I know I've used Acrobat Reader for this in the past, but I can't remember the details. These days I use Foxit Reader, which can 'copy' an image to the system clipboard, from where you can paste it into an image utility (I use IrfanView) and save it as a .jpg file.
 * About fair-use images: yeah, it is a pain typing in those rationales, but keeping the copyright lawyers away is important. (Talking about copyright, I suggest you get that PDF deleted.) Cheers, CWC 08:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

VDH
Hi - I removed the VDH comment again, but only before seeing your note in the edit summaries. Can you flesh out the use of "VDH" by saying who uses it, and why? There are a lot of nicknames given to public figures and thinkers, and I think it is problematic to use them in the lead paragraph, regardless. Can you place it some place else? -- David  Shankbone  18:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did a bit of Googling, and didn't find anything I'd want to use. Moreover, referring to Victor Davis Hanson as VDH is kinda obvious, isn't it? (And you're certainly right about it not belonging in the lede.) So your edit is fine by me. Cheers, CWC 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Catch
thanks for that catch on the ringo page. I go to that page all the time and cant believe i never caught that "bad" review. Towers84 09:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection
You wanted semi-protection for this page over a month ago, but it was declined, as this is a talk page, and talk pages aren't normally protected (when they are semi-protected, IPs and new users can't contact a user or discuss on an article's talk page). Well, since most of the edits to this page for the last month have been either vandalism or reverts, I've decided to semi-protect this talk page for a month. I hope that was okay with you. Acalamari 16:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Thanks. CWC 04:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Brainwashing 101
As you participated in Articles for deletion/Brainwashing 101, I am notifying you of Articles for deletion/Brainwashing 101 (2nd nomination). - Crockspot 05:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

sour grapes of Murdoch press
sources that are relied upon need to be independent of what they are reporting on, Bolt and the Australian's editor are obviously not neutral sources of criticism on this program's coverage of the Murdoch press as opposed to others media organisations. Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTownsvillian (talk • contribs) 10:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (Context: WikiTownsvillian is disagreeing with my recent editing at Media Watch (TV program).)
 * I'm afraid this comment is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV rules. Let's generalize: suppose organization X is Notable enough to have a Wikipedia article and has been criticised by organization Y for doing Z, and Y is Notable itself, or represents a significant viewpoint that has been reported by, or promoted by, a Reliable Source. Then we should report Y's views "in proportion to the prominence of each [view]" (quoting WP:NPOV at WP:UNDUE). (However, we should use wording like "Y says that X is wrong to do Z"; saying just "X is wrong to do Z" is not acceptable — we have to say where the criticism is coming from.) The motivations for Y's criticism do not affect whether we should report that criticism (though they certainly should affect how we report that criticism — we need to provide some context).
 * In this case, it is not acceptable to remove all the substantial criticism from our article about a highly controversial meta-journalism outlet just because you think those complaints are "sour grapes".
 * (BTW, both The Australian and Andrew Bolt are far more prominent in terms of audience and effect on public discourse than Media Watch. Now go read what WP:UNDUE says about prominence.)
 * OTOH, I've just talked myself into putting more context into my cited, notable criticisms of Media Watch. Thanks for prodding me to do that. Cheers, CWC 11:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In re your comment
There's a forum for this now. — Athaenara ✉  07:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Agriculture
Welcome! Please look around the Project page and discussions for things you can do and feel free to add things of your own. We're a very new Project. You'll notice that we are currently in a (recently very heated) discussion about navboxes. We're also trying to work out an "all species" breed box, analogous to taxobox (and probably modeled on the one used by WikiProject Horse breeds. Obviously our scope is huge, there are a tremendous number of articles, many with a lot of anti-ag POV that needs to be worked on to show respect for and balance modern agriculture, traditional methods, and concerns about the environment, ethics, and health.  There is also a lot of US-centric stuff out there, I'm sure you've noticed (I've noticed and I'm a Yank!).  This is tough work, obviously you don't have to take it all on, just letting you know what a big job we have.  Fortunately, we have a group and as the Project grows the work will seem a lot more manageable.  Thanks for signing up!--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Melbourne Meetup
Hello! The Melburnians are having another meet-up! Please consult this page if you are interested to participate in the discussion! Thanks! Phgao 03:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected again
Just so you know, I've semi-protected your talk page for another month, as that IP vandal keeps harassing you. Acalamari 04:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Colebatch
The article on Colebatch was written by the man himself, and is heavily biased in his favour. The "twice-failed Liberal candidate" information is just the kind of information that is relevant to the article, but omitted by Colebatch.

It seems to me that the person who is inserting this information, Graham Milner, is himself biased. He is more interested in discrediting Colebatch than in improving the article. He didn't do himself any credit by jamming the information into the infobox 14 times, without once engaging in any discussion on it. However he seems now to have finally gotten the message and tried integrating it into the text.

Having said all that, it falls to us unbiased few to try to make a tolerably good article out of this mess. I think inclusion of the "twice failed candidate" information is fair enough, considering the pro-Colebatch bias of the rest of the article. But if you really feel this is a BLP issue, and the information shouldn't be included without a reference, then revert me again and I won't argue.

Hesperian 04:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hesperian, I've moved your (rather good) sentence about the "twice-failed candidate" stuff to Talk:Hal Gibson Pateshall Colebatch for discussion, for reasons given there. (Feel free to argue with me.) I had already noticed that the article reads more like an "About me" page on a personal website than an encyclopedia entry. I've now stuck cn tags on the two most obvious pieces of egoboo, but that's only a small start on fixing the article. Each individual sentence is OK, but the overall tone is not encyclopedic enough; that's a hard thing to fix. (At present we mention that 3 of his books have forewords by prominent Australians. I'm not sure whether this level of detail is appropriate to an encyclopedia article. Any comments?)
 * In a spirit of openness, I should admit that my only knowledge of Colebatch comes from (1) Wikipedia and (2) reading and enjoying his Man-Kzin stories and a few of his articles about politics. I should also confess that this edit summary was unduly harsh. Cheers, CWC 06:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not my sentence; it's Graham's. I see he has re-inserted it already. That makes sixteen times. As far as I'm concerned the article is a dreadful piece of hagiography, which is the only reason I'm inclined to let what is obviously a petty attack stand - because I don't want to defend a horribly biased article against something that might actually balance it somewhat.
 * But really, what you're doing here is just fine. I know better than to argue the point on unsourced BLP material. We're on the same side here.
 * Hesperian 10:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

Benador Associates
I noticed that you twice placed a request for citation on the Benador Associates page,, but it was silently removed by User:Kitrus. I've removed the sentence altogether; do you think any other action should be taken at this point? Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (Refreshes memory ... Oh, that.) No, I see no need for further action, now that you've removed that sentence. Thanks for the good edit. Cheers, CWC 04:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it was reverted, and User:Nagle added a source that you had already strongly objected to on the Talk: page. I've tried to bring the article in line with policy; perhaps you'd like to comment on the Talk: page: Talk:Benador Associates. Jayjg (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello Chris Chittleborough, I've granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 19:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Acalamari. I generally do a few vandalism cleanup edits per week, so rollback won't make a big difference for me, but it will help. Cheers, CWC 14:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Adelaide Wikimeetup 3
Hi Chris - we're planning a third meetup in Adelaide sometime in the coming weeks, and would love to have you there. If you can, please help decide a location, a date and a time here. Thanks!

9/11
Hi,

you might want to look at the list I (we) are compiling at: Talk:9/11. I appreciate any addition or criticism you can make. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Adelaide Wikimeetup 3
Hi Chris Chittleborough - after some planning we've decided to hold the third Adelaide Wikimeetup on Sunday, 17th February, 2008. The meeting will be held at Billy Baxter's in Rundle Mall at 11:30AM. Further details and directions are available on the meetup page. Please RSVP here by 20:00UTC on 15th February 2008 (that's 6AM Saturday for our time zone) so that we can inform the restaurant about numbers. Hope to see you there!

You are receiving this message because you are in Category:Wikipedians in South Australia or are listed at WP:ADEL. If this has been sent in error, please accept our apologies!

On behalf of Riana ⁂, 11:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning
You are at 3RR, and edit warring, re. your attempt to censor Talk:Ted Frank. This is not a BLP issue, and your contentious editing on the subject will quite possibly get you blocked. If you truly think this is an issue you should take it to WP:BLP/N rather than edit warring over your attempt to remove comments from a talk page. Wikidemo (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Get a clue. I'm at 0RR. Calling a prominent mainstream conservative "far right" is a massive WP:BLP violation, always has been and always will be. Knowing very little about the genuine "far right" is not an excuse here.
 * So I am required by Wikipedia policy to remove it, and user:Wikidemo is violating core Wikipedia policy by reinstating it. Stop doing that! Geez, CWC 08:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your tone is quite uncivil and you just made a personal attack on my talk page about that in the process of violating 3RR over trying to censor an old discussion. I obviously know a lot more about Wikipedia policy than you, and your attempt to redact Wikipedia's discussion history ended up associating Ted Frank with the term "far right" six or eight times where it had been a simple mention.Wikidemo (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Darn. I was trying to be civil. Sorry.

I'm afraid it's you who are harming your own reputation here, Wikidemo. As it happens, I knew you to be a bigger and better contribution than I am well before this fracas started. That's why I'm disappointed to see you repeatedly violate the plain language and spirit of WP:BLP, as well as WP:AGF. Redacting silly, false and extremely derogatory slurs is not "censor[ing] an old discussion", it's doing what WP:BLP requires all of us to do. I'm astonished and deeply disappointed that you failed to recognize this, and I sincerely hope you now know better. Please, please don't make this mistake again. (And please keep up your 99.99%-superb editing.)

As most observers will have guessed by now, I can't stand the common but morally and intellectually bankrupt trick of slurring anyone to the left of Ted Kennedy as "far right". Why? Because it makes it much harder to expose the genuine "far right" when people are misled into believing that ordinary GOP politicians are effectively indistinguishable from someone David Duke, let alone Tom Metzger. The successful racists are good at pointing to these sort of lies and using them as propaganda tools. I want Wikipedia to expose the racists, not hand them ammunition! CWC 15:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at clarity
I'm astonished that any reasonable adult has any trouble understanding the reasoning here. Clearly the problem is not lack of intellectual ability — so what is it? This worries me. CWC 16:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Cleary the tag "far right" applies to people people like this.
 * 2) Using the same label for mainstream conservatives is a sneaky way of saying that there is no difference between (say) Ezra Levant and the genuine Racist Right.
 * 3) But there are enormous differences between the Racist Right and mainstream conservatives. In fact those differences are far, far greater that the differences between mainstream conservatives and people like Markos Moulitsas.
 * 4) Therefore, smearing mainstream conservatives as "far right" is contentious.
 * 5) Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately and without waiting for further discussion.  That's Wikipedia policy and that's what I did.
 * 6) The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. Restores the material? That's what Wikidemo did, and he did not provide any evidence.
 * 7) I explained all this, rather less verbosely, in my edit comments and messages to Wikidemo.

It's an intellectual mistake, perhaps. Ted Frank is to the right of most Americans but perhaps not enough to be called "far", and such labels are one-dimensional anyway and not very useful. However, everyone is entitled to their opinions on the talk page. #5 does not apply the same way to talk pages that it does to article pages, among other things because information on talk pages is not sourced. If contentious information about living people were inappropriate for talk pages you could never have, say, a notability discussion. #6 clearly does not apply to talk pages at all. You're making a very simple logical fallacy, by the way. Just because the term "far right" is applied to a number of unsavory individuals does not mean that the term itself is an unsavory one. "Far right" has a simple, common meaning that someone is among the perhaps 10-15 percent most conservative people. It doesn't imply racism or anything else derogatory anymore than calling someone "liberal" or "extreme liberal" or "far left" implies that they hate America and want to see us lose wars. When you look at the purpose of BLP it's to prevent harm and avoid libel. Ted Frank has a lot of invectives thrown at him and is used to being called far worse than "far right", so I don't think we're going to hurt his feelings much less his reputation with a stray old comment on the talk page. It's certainly nothing libelous. I think the proper response would be to add a comment of your own saying what you say here, that the term is unfair and people shouldn't throw it around casually. That way, anyone reading the talk page (which is mostly editors, few members of the non-Wiki public) will see that some random reader made a hasty comment and the community corrected him/her. If you get into deleting and edit warring, you actually cause more of a fuss, and people will simply see an edit war. If it were a truly bad violation, like calling someone a pedophile, criminal, etc., someone would actually have to delete the edit history so the term doesn't appear anywhere at all. Incidentally, calling your edits "weird" was perhaps too harsh but they seemed very unusual for a talk page; I accept that you meant no incivility, but you did say that I was supporting an edit that accused Ted Frank of being a Jew hater, etc. As you can see from my comments I don't believe the term means that at all. Wikidemo (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree (surprise, surprise). "Far right" has to include the racist right, therefore it associates people with the racist right, and that's exactly why people use it to smear mainstream conservatives. The difference between "far right" and "far left" is that it's well-known that the former kill people while the latter don't (at least, not any more, and even then in much smaller numbers). Falsely smearing someone as far right is, to some of us, as bad as falsely calling them a pedophile. (The more you know about the genuine far right, the truer that will be of you.)
 * Furthermore, people are not entitled to express unsourced, viciously defamatory opinions on any pages here; that's the plain meaning of the BLP policy. I know that not everyone realizes that "far right" is viciously defamatory; I hope to help people realize that it is.
 * Wikidemo, you're right about TF getting lots of abuse. (Check out the comments on overlawyered.com sometime.) His tort reform work angers lots of people, a few of whom are really rich and ...er... inclined to value results over morality. Therefore I suggest a careful watch on that article ... which is were I came in.
 * Cheers, CWC 03:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ted Frank talk page
I've archived that talk page to address your concerns. (the only thing that remains is a historical link to the old version). None of those discussions was less than 5 months old, so no need to keep them around, and archiving is less controversial than editing comments. ATren (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good move. I should have thought of that. Thanks, CWC 12:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Marc Lemire
[Further WP:BLP violations redacted.] Defending the reputation of an avowed racist and anti-Semite is indeed a strange thing to do to fill your time. Frank Pais (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One of Wikipedia's core policies forbids doing what Frank just did: writing defamatory statements about someone without any sourcing. This applies to every page on the project, including this one. See here for my further response.
 * I strongly believe that the way to overcome the racists is to behave better than they do, not lower ourselves to the same dishonest tactics that so many of them use. (There are some racists who behave honestly — very few, but they do exist. It's a weird, weird world we live in.) Lying about them just gives them ammunition to gather more followers.
 * Short version: I'm not defending Lemire, I'm defending Wikipedia.


 * Somewhat relevant aside: most white supremacists explicitly reject Naziism because
 * the Nazis were such a corrupt bunch of losers and/or
 * the sort of people they'd prefer to recruit find Nazis repulsive
 * In other words, going neo-Nazi is a bad business decision.


 * Cheers, CWC 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ASCII FAR
ASCII has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom
I find it a little odd that you stated there was no edit conflict, yet you are stating here that you wanted his block removed from your block log after it was overturned that WMC had blocked you while in a dispute. Can you please explain better if the block was legit at the time, and if so why you wanted your block log to represent something contrary, of it it was not legit? --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see what you were stating I believe. --I Write Stuff (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Blp
Just for the record, I support your edit (diff) and your strong Blp policy compliance rationale. — Athaenara ✉  09:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

American Enterprise Institute
I know you're from Australia so it's hard to know the nuances of American politics, but AEI are Neoconservative and not Conservative. There is a stark difference between the two, as Conservatives would never go about empire building. While you're correct that some mainstream sources would state this group is Conservative, that's erroneous as they are Neoconservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.130.115 (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear anon: the article says that the AEI has connections to neoconservatism, which is correct. Much of what they do is straightforwardly conservative. Tort reform, deregulation, pro-life, ect. In fact, it's even hard to ascribe these positions to the AEI because many of the scholars disagree with each other. At any rate, "conservative" is a broad enough label to include most of their work, while "neoconservative" is not. Cool Hand Luke 18:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool Hand Luke is exactly right: “'conservative' is a broad enough label to include most of their work, while 'neoconservative' is not.” The AEI has been a major mainstream conservative thinktank since before neoconservatism existed. A high-quality encyclopedia article about the AEI has to start by calling them "conservative", then go into their relationship with neoconservatives (and other branches of conservatism) later.
 * As it happens, I've been following U.S. politics for decades. Newspaper reports here often mention how important the big Washington think-tanks are, but it's only by reading U.S. newspapers and blogs over the internet that I have understood just how vital they are to policy development in the U.S., especially given the weak (by world standards) and loose party structures. (The U.S. political system is quite weird in many ways, you know.)
 * Cheers, CWC 16:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

C--
Thanks! I make it my mission to stamp out passive voice everywhere I go :-) SparsityProblem (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion
I noticed that you have edited in related areas within WP, and so thought you might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Space Gamer/ VIP of Gaming
I'm a long time Paranoia Collector, and I'm trying to find the issues of that which have Paranoia articles in them.

Specifically, SG #76, which has two articles, and #4 of the VIP of Gaming. I was wondering if you could send me the specific jpg's, or pdf's.

I've found all the one's in Dragon, and Mongoose's are all current stuff, but those have proven most elusive.

I would appreciate your help, if you're still online.

Greymist08@yahoo.com

WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008
The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin "conservative"?
Hi. I've opened a discussion about whether the lede sentence in Michelle Malkin should label her as a "conservative" at Talk:Michelle_Malkin. For once, I disagree with you, so please go there and tell me if I'm wrong. (Perhaps the problem is related to the word "conservative", which in US politics means "advocate of change based on traditional values" more than "opposed to all change".)

BTW, you might want to change the Wiktionary link at the top of this page to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/outwith (instead of .../Outwith).

Cheers, CWC 15:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi CWC, I will check out the MM talk page and join in there. I personally hate "labeling" individuals in the lead unless absolutely neccessary. How are most other bios handled, both liberal and conservative?? This isn't the biggest deal in the world so I should probably defer to others. I will also check on my talk page about outwith :) Cheers and happy New Years! --Tom 15:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha! Now I see where you're coming from.
 * Hmmm. I'm happy to label people in the lede, as long as we're careful about it. But we do need to be careful; I've seen people here wrongly label conservativism-in-the-US-style conservatives as neoconservatives, for example.
 * And a happy New Year to you too, Tom. CWC 16:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Point of View
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.

You accuse others of inserting their own point of view while ALL of your edits are based entirely on your point of view. Do not message me again.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.156.52 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Chronicles (magazine)
I'm writing to you because I see your name in the contribution history of Chronicles (magazine). Since January 2009, an anonymous editor with an unfixed IP address has been removing any mention of "paleoconservatism" in regard to the magazine. I've improved the references but there doesn't appear to be any dispute over whether the publication is "paleo" or not. Even Google describes it, "Leading paleoconservative journal, published by the Rockford Institute." I've posted to the talk page but he hasn't responded. We can't block the user and the only alternative is a longterm semi-protection of the article, which isn't ideal either. Do you have any opinion on the matter?  Will Beback   talk    20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I've posted the same question at Talk:Paleoconservatism.   Will Beback    talk    21:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't help much here, sorry. My edits to the article were just routine tidying up, and all I know about the magazine comes from reading our article. I can say that you seem to handling the situation very well (as usual). Cheers, CWC 10:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Kathy Shaidle
Hi, Chris: you've recently edited the Kathy_Shaidle article. I have a dispute with another user over content, and I wonder if you'd like to comment? You might also want to read my comment at User_talk:NJGW. Cheers, Chris B. 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.187.193 (talk)

The Flight 93 National Memorial
Hi Chris. You recently fulfilled my citation request on the zombietime article. In looking at the source you cited, I don't seem to see any reference to "similar statements... made by a variety of blogs and news outlets". I see that it talks about "some religious groups and online blogs", though a religious group is different than a news outlet. We may need to reword that statement to match the source. I also can't find a statement about "the design being modified". Could you point out what in the source supports that? I only skimmed the source, so I may have missed it. Thanks! ← George [ talk  ] 00:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do-oh! My bad. I got two Architectural Record items confused; I'll add the second one to the article. I'll also reword to "some religious groups and online blogs" — you're quite correct about that as well. Thanks for helping me fix my own stuff-up. CWC 00:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks for taking care of it. ← George [ talk  ] 06:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

frank pais
Frank Pais has implied by my name that I am a fascist on the Pinochet talk page. I know that you have warned him before about this behaviour. Would you consider doing so again.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you're talking about this edit. I see FP insinuating nasty things but never making an obvious personal attack. I think you're just going to have to put up with that sort of thing. BTW, the temptation to retaliate may be fierce, but it is far wiser to be civil (and WP:CIVil). Hope this helps -- CWC 17:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard Stallman
Thank you for helping to improve the article's compliance and overall quality.--Grandscribe (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was glad to do it. I'm very keen on following WP:BLP. Also, while I'm not Stallman's biggest fan, I want the article to mention his enormous contributions to the field of computing as a developer, not just his activism. Cheers, CWC 11:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Frances Townsend & WP:BLP
Hello. Unfortunately, my inquiry has to take you back to Dec 2007 but before doing so let me briefly describe my related experience in the very present. Few minutes ago I listened to former homeland security adviser Frances Townsend live on C-SPAN. Having never heard her speak, I was intrigued by her appearance and variability of genuine security-related topics of her talk. Naturally, I looked her up in Wikipedia and found an interesting entry regarding her handwritten 2007 resignation letter to President Bush. I found the two year old letter to be consistent with her talk on C-SPAN with respect to the character of a public official.

Anyway, the letter entry in article was followed by a criticism from Harper's Magazine which you removed on the basis of it being a "slur". While I agree that the Harper's quotation contains words that are not an accurate and exaggerated, for example, "sycophant" (a word that uses the word "servile" as part of its definition) to describe Townsend and "erstwhile master" to describe her relationship with President Bush, the quotation does come from an organization that is considered to be a reliable source. Further, the word "slur" is not in WP:BLP.

So I was wondering if you would like to revisit your 10 December 2007 revert by commenting further on exactly what part of WP:BLP or any other WP addresses Harper's attack (clearly an attack) on Ms. Townsend but which also sheds light into the character of this former public official.

Thanks for any consideration. Henry Delforn (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I have no memory of that edit, but I can reconstruct my thinking. My edit comment was responding to the 2 preceding edit comments:
 * 09:50, 24 November 2007 210.79.28.191 (4,887 bytes) (→Career: rm nn slur per WP:BLP)
 * 20:02, 24 November 2007 Athene cunicularia (5,273 bytes) (Undid revision 173444574 by 210.79.28.191 (talk) slur?)
 * 13:12, 10 December 2007 Chris Chittleborough (4,887 bytes) (Undid revision 173542332 by Athene cunicularia (talk) - Yep, that's a slur for sure)
 * While accurate, my comment is irrelevant. The anon is right about Horton's blog post being "nn" (Not Notable) but it is WP:NPOV which says that Horton's opinion does not belong in our article, not WP:BLP (nor WP:Notability). Note that Horton's comment comes not from Harper's presumed-reliable magazine content, but from Harper's blog, which is not a WP:Reliable Source.
 * In any event, I prefer the "show, don't tell" approach, so I've edited Frances Townsend to just say her resignation letter was handwritten and give the quote from it:
 * Townsend resigned her post on November 19, 2007. In her handwritten resignation letter to President Bush, Townsend said: "In 1937, the playwright Maxwell Anderson wrote of President George Washington: 'There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, til all men walk on higher ground in their lifetime.' Mr. President, you are such a man."&lt;ref ...&gt;
 * I'm happy for our readers to draw their own conclusions from that.
 * Hope this helps ... CWC 06:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert Stacy McCain
I was told to come here and congratulate you. By the looks of what went down, I think you deserve it :). BluefieldWV (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! CWC 05:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Kate McMillan edit
Chris, I'm confused about this edit. Can you explain why you removed the "coverage in media" section? I fail to see any BLP SYNTH or RS problems, and newscoverage is the very definition of notability, so I don't understand that point either.--chaser (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Chaser. Yeah, that edit summary does not match that edit very well. I apologize. (Not the first time I've made that mistake, either. See above. Errk.)
 * That article was full of BLP/NPOV/SYNTH violations, but the main change I made in that edit was to removed a section with none of those problems. I assumed (wrongly, I now see) that that section came from people trying to demonstrate WikiNotability during the AfD discussion. I was worried that mentions in a "best of the blogs" column (that does not have permalinks! Bah!) at the Toronto Sun were not all that significant, that she was only one of 6 Canadian bloggers quoted by the BBC, and (most importantly to me) that she did not coin nor (I think) use the phrase "post-Katrina egocentrism" about Celine Dion. So I did the B-in-WP:BRD thing and deleted the whole section. In retrospect, I was wrong.
 * My current thoughts:
 * We should mention the BBC thing, but using language like "one of six Canadian bloggers ...".
 * The old sentence about the Sask LA was pretty good, except that the second URL was wrong:
 * McMillan and her blog have been mentioned on the floor of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan.
 * I'm neutral about the Toronto Sun mentions.
 * I started working on a new version of the article in my sandbox, but haven't touched it for a while. (The "Inner Saskatoon controversy" section is going to be hard work.) I'd welcome any comments or edits you might have. (BTW, has stopped editing Wikipedia. See Talk:Somena and Somena.)
 * So it's time for the R-in-WP:BRD bit, right? Looking forward to your response, CWC 13:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we could restore that whole paragraph. As I dig deeper, I'm wondering whether an AFD isn't a better idea. See this comment from the subject. The no consensus AFD was in 2005, but BLP policy has evolved since then. I think the only alternative is turning this into an article about the blog, as you suggest. There's really no reliable source with anything but the most basic information about the blogger.--chaser (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've restored that paragraph, with some changes. Please take a look; see also Talk:Kate McMillan.
 * I agree that Wikipedia should not have an article about Kate McMillan, per (1) not notable except for the blog, (2) lack of good sources and (3) her preference. I say that we should have an article about Small Dead Animals: the 2008 webby win accurately reflects SDA's prominence amongst conservative blogs, so a decent coverage of major blogs has to include SDA.
 * So I've announced at Talk:Kate McMillan that I'll make that move absent objections. I'd especially appreciate your input, Chaser. CWC 15:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Steyn on President Carter
On 15 Nov 2009 you deleted the section "Steyn on President Carter" under the guise that it was "editorializing." In what way was this so? Italus (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You were making a case that Mark Steyn was wrong: "Steyn failed to mention that ...". But that's your analysis. We Wikipedia editors are forbidden from putting our own personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions into articles. Instead, we should report what "reliable sources" have said, as long as those claims are verifiable, and add up to a balanced report, being especially careful with articles about living people. (For a longer collection of links to key Wikipedia rules, see Five pillars.) It seems to me, Italus, that you probably need to refresh your understanding of those rules; perhaps reading the pages linked in the bolded text would help.
 * Of course, not every editor obeys those rules (eg., vandals, trolls, agenda accounts) and even the best editors occasionally slip up. The important thing is to work on understanding and following those rules, because that's the way to make Wikipedia less sucky. Hope this helps, CWC 18:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"New" Versus "Old" Journalism
Hi Chris!

I hope you are doing well and enjoying the lovely weekend. I would have posted this message on the talk-page for Hannah Giles, but I thought it might dovetail too far away from that actual subject. So I hope you dont mind me posting it here.

You had mentioned on the Giles Talk-page that you have an interest in the issue of Old vrs New Journalism, which i agree is a fascinating topic (albeit one not totally yet suitable for the Giles article as it stands... for now, that is, it could all change in the near future.)

I dont know if you had heard the recent debate hosted by NPR about that same issue. It was a fascinating and spirited discussion with credited advocates from both sides of the matter. I am trying to find a link to the transcripts for that program, since I think you might find it a rich resource on a variety of opinions dealing with that subject. If that subject is one that energizes you in your own work, the debate on NPR would offer you a fruitful collection of eloquent, provocative & thoughtful arguments from all sides.

But with respect to some of the real problems which are raised by what we might call "New Journalism", you might find this article from the Atlantic to be of interest: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200910/media

Mark Bowden, who wrote the article, offers some powerful and significant caveats about the direction of journalism in America today, as per "new" Journalistic (lack of) Standards. This article was quoted extensively in Fenwick's Columbia Journalism Review article (which i offered as a potential source for the "criticism" section on the Giles page.) Fenwick's article details some of the problems in Hannah Giles's Work (eg, the criticisms about her relaibility, and the lack of context in her videos,) but Fenwick uses Bowden's example of the Sotomayor smear-campaign as a template for outlining the problems which inhere in many examples of "New Journalism."

In any case, I hope this is useful to you. If I find a link to the debate on NPR, I'll message it to you. Cheers! Ceemow (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ceemow. That NPR debate sounds interesting; I'd love a link. I saw Bowden's article soon after it came out; I'll take another look at it.
 * I haven't read Talk:Hannah Giles for day or two, and it will probably take me a few days to catch up. I may end up delivering a Uw-chat1 or Uw-chat2 message to a certain user (not you). In the meantime, can I ask you to resist the temptation to debate the politics even when provoked. Which is not an easy thing, I know.
 * Cheers, CWC 16:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ezra Levant
Your edits are subjective comments that speak to the merits of the charges by a defendant - they are not objective commentary. If you would like to include Mr. Levants subjective commentary - then for balance you should include details of the claims and the "merits" expressed by the other side. You have politicized a legal lawsuit by adding commentary about a political party that is irrelevant to the legals proceedings. In addition - you added highly subjective language that is not NPOV. Your edits are clearly politically motivated and contrary to the guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.232.142 (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree. In a Biography of a living person, we should give both sides but err on the side of generosity to the article subject. I'm not trying to give "objective commentary", I'm trying to objectively summarize Levant's responses to the lawsuits. The difference is important. (Summarizing Levant's voluminous and vigorous responses is not easy, BTW!)
 * Should we give Warman's side of the case? That's trickier. I am certain of this much: we must not reproduce the "Ann Cools" comment, we should not accuse Warman of writing it, and we probably should not say that Levant has suggested that Warman did write it. See also the next two sections. Cheers, CWC 11:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ezra Levant
You have repeatedly added the subjective descriptive language and labelled as "controversial" Mr. Richard Warman. This is a subjective comment that violated Wiki's policy of living persons. It is also not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.232.142 (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I changed "... sued for libel by lawyer Richard Warman" to "Lawyer Richard Warman is suing ...", then decided it would read better with an adjective in front of "lawyer", and "controversial" was the first word I thought of. I think it's safe to say Warman is controversial, but "Lawyer-activist" would be better ... or maybe no qualifiers at all. Hmm. Cheers, CWC 11:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ezra Levant - Follow Up
I have been trying to add back the proper reference to Mr. Levant's Statement of Defence without luck (Rrrrrrrr). This will allow readers to view the details of his defence if so desired. The proper reference should be there, however, detailed subjective commentary about the merits of a claim should be omitted. Prior language was heavily unbalanced. I apologize for the struggle re-inserting the reference. The intent was not to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.232.142 (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, we do not "allow readers to view the details"; instead we give them a summary, with citations (preferably links) to the documents we are summarizing. We must not say something like "Warman is using vexatious litigation to conceal his activities on neo-Nazi websites". But we can and should say that "Levant says Warman is using vexatious litigation to conceal his activities on neo-Nazi websites." (Which is something that Levant does say.) That is an objective statement ("Levant says ...") about a subjective statement (what Levant says).
 * In the same way, it is right and proper for Wikipedia to says things like "John Donut says that Bush staged the 9-11 attacks", assuming John Donut does say that. That does not mean Wikipedia is saying that Bush staged 9-11, only that we are reporting that what some kook says. Similarly, we have to convey Levant's responses to attacks on him, whether or not we believe those responses. Giving a good summary of Levant's various and vigorous responses is not easy, but we have to try.
 * Apart from the word "controversial" (see above), I think my recent edits to Ezra Levant have been pretty much in line with Wikipedia's rules and aims ... your edits, not so much. That's OK, you're new and it takes a while to learn how this place works (or at least is supposed to work ...). I've left a message on your talk page. Cheers, CWC 11:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen McIntyre
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 21:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder. CWC 07:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Trolling
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Marc Thiessen, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I deleted an offensive joke (using that term in the broadest possible sense) of no possible relevance to the article, per WP:TPG.
 * Get a clue, Gamaliel! (Is there a UTM template for that?)
 * False accusations of vandalism are against the rules, too.
 * Given Gameliel's demonstrated arrogance and indifference to WP:BLP, someone should monitor his edits to Bios of Living conservative People.
 * CWC 19:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to lodge your complaint in the appropriate manner. Perhaps a noticeboard or an RFC. Gamaliel (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be an unproductive use of my time and (more importantly) the time of the Wikipedians who assessed my complaint. I would far rather G read BLP again, this time treating it as something to be respected rather than wikilawyered around. Cheers, CWC 06:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You have apparently confused disagreeing with you with disagreeing with policy. Should I ever stop respecting and enforcing the policy, I shall be sure to read it thoroughly again. Until then, cheers. Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Start reading, then. You were denying both the details and spirit of BLP as surely as you violated DTR and NPA.

And stop trolling. Any future messages from your account on this page will be rolled back unread. CWC 00:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we can both agree on this
I reverted your edit at Marc Thiessen but here said I'd add Thiessen's response, which I think we can both agree on. Regards, JohnWBarber (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine. We'll work something out. See you at Talk:Marc Thiessen. Cheers, CWC 03:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, if you don't have any objection, I'll add the information we discussed to the Marc Thiessen article. I tweaked your suggestion in minor ways, and I think we can agree on it, but I'd rather not make the edit yet if you're not OK with it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not responding — things got hectic here. I like your version (though I was hoping for more improvement over my draft!). Please put your wording in the article. See you at the talk page ... Cheers, CWC 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Climate Audit
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Climate Audit. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Climate Audit (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Congrats to whoever created this extremely helpful bot. Thanks, CWC 03:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Alarmist?
"Alarmist" is to anti-choice/pro-abortion as anti-alarmist is to pro-life/pro-choice. Define people how they define themselves. Hipocrite (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * [Expletives expressing strong annoyance]. I thought "alarmist" had at least a secondary meaning of "people who are trying to raise the alarm because they see something really bad coming", but now I consult my dictionaries I find it basically means "scaremongering", which is not what I was trying to say. I've struck out that sentence in the RFC.
 * There's a fairly good analogy with a crowd in a theater. No one has a right to shout "fire" ... unless there really is a fire (or at least he or she thinks so), in which case he or she has not just a right but a duty to warn the others. Anyone who believes that AGW is a major threat is quite justified in raising the alarm, and should not be criticized for doing so, even if open to criticism on other grounds.
 * I've looked in a few thesauruses but not found any good word for someone who honestly warns about a future danger. "Alarmer"? "Alerter"? "Proclaimer"? Hmmm ...
 * I would really love to find a way past the bad use of labels by many on both sides of the debate about AGW. For instance, anti-alarm people like being called "skeptics": as they often point out, all good scientists are skeptics so that term implies that the alarm-raisers are not good scientists. Calling your opponents "deniers" or "denialists" in a deliberate attempt to associate them with Holocaust Deniers is a sure sign of intellectual and moral bankruptcy. On a narrower point, "pro-AGW" literally means people who want disruptive AGW (there are such people, eg., in Russia), which the alarm-raisers actually want to prevent. To complicate things, some leading anti-alarm people do not believe in AGW at all, while others believe that AGW is real but will never be big enough to matter; finding good terminology to cover both those camps is not easy.
 * Sorrowfully yours, CWC 09:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I forgot to say: always calling groups by their own preferred name results in calling the nasty theocrats who laid the foundations for Al Qaeda a name which means "the only genuine followers of Mohamed". I really don't want to do that. Some element of judgment is required. Cheers, CWC 17:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure. We call Al Qaeda "Al Qaeda." Very few groups aren't identified by their chosen moniker. Could you think of some examples? Hipocrite (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of the Wahhabis (named after their founder) who try to get people to call them "Salafis", which carries the implication that they, and only they, are true followers of their Prophet. The Wahhabi movement is dominated by hardline, violence-prone Saudis, who have used oil money to displace moderate muslims from mosques and madrassas around the world. Whether Wikipedia should call them "salafis" is open for debate, but I won't.
 * On a rather different level, I've talked myself into avoiding "skeptics" as a term for the anti-alarm side of the AGW debate, at least on Wikipedia. CWC 17:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In this area, there are no agreed labels. As you say, "skeptics" like being called skeptics but that isn't neutral or acceptable to "the other side". "The other side" has no self-accepted label, probably because it isn't a coherent "side"; "science-based" would probably be the closest though no-one actually uses that William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. Both sides have only pejorative names for their opponents and self-congratulatory names for themselves? How [expletives] depressing. CWC 17:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Where "alarmist" is used by outside observers (like Maxwell Boykoff), it's used in reference to the fringe, not the scientific mainstream. The other fringe is called "skeptic" (often their label of choice), "denialist" or "contrarian", with the latter two terms being used fairly interchangeably in the literature. There is, I think, a pretty interesting, though nascent literature on the movement. I just started reading a book by Peter Jacques (a political scientist) called Environmental Skepticism, and it looks rather interesting. Guettarda (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, at AU$120 per copy, I don't see myself reading it any time soon. Also, I disagree with the book's thesis as summarized by the publisher: conservatives in fact believe that some environmental problems are authentic and important — for example, a certain undersea oil leak ...
 * Now I'd like to trot out one of my hobbyhorses: in an important way, the environmental movement has won. Until the 1960s, people who preferred preserving the environment to economic Progress were widely disdained. By the late 1970s, nearly everyone in Western nations accepted that environmental costs can, and often do, outweigh economic benefits. This is a Good Thing. But it poses a strategic problem for 'green' organizations (and individuals): do you join non-environmental groups and even major political parties, where environmental issues will be just one of many areas of concern, or do you move away from the political mainstream in order to more easily recruit supporters? I expect that some major 'green' organizations will effectively be absorbed into left-wing parties, while some others will end up on police watchlists. Which gets me onto another hobbyhorse: contemporary 'marches of folly' (see ISBN 0394527771). Regards, CWC 14:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Luboš Motl
As a person who has made significant contributions to this article, you may be interested to know it has been nominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl (3rd nomination). Robofish (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.  Jujutacular  talk 14:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That was quick! Thanks very much, CWC 15:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Shiny, let's be bad guys
Honestly, I'm about as neutral as one can be about politics and political commentators (since I really don't care about any of it) and your last remark was way off base. Furthermore, I'm a big fan of Joss Whedon (and my last edit summary on the Malkin talkpage even paraphrased a Buffy quote from waaaay back) so surely we can find some common ground and proceed without acrimony? At least you'll know for sure that when I say "I'm confused, I'm angry, and I'm armed" it's a joke, not a threat  : )  Doc   Tropics  19:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I bitterly resent the way you make better Whedonesque jokes than I do ...
 * As someone prone to typos, I shouldn't have riffed on that tiny typo, but I'd just finished reading this and couldn't resist.
 * As I suspect you've worked out, my 2 recent comments on talk:Michelle Malkin were intentionally provocative, in an attempt to get editors to think about Malkin-hatred.
 * I've made some discoveries about the Malkin/Rivera feud which make it even harder to cover briefly yet neutrally. Sigh. I'll put the details on the talk page. Best wishes, CWC 10:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly; any Whedon joke is a good Whedon joke! Nice job of research finding those tidbits that you posted on the talkpage, even if they do mean more work for us in the long run. Matt Sanchez's BLP presents similar challenges because his story causes partisans on both sides of the aisle to go into hysterical frenzies of moral outrage. Personally though, I kind of admire a man who can annoy the entire political spectrum all at the same time, lol.


 * True, true. (Am I the only person who has a negative attitude to Fox News because the Fox TV people keep canceling really good SF series? I know it's irrational, but it is real.)
 * My first attempt at finding a source for the Malkin/Rivera thing failed miserably. I'll have another go later this month. Next time I take Michelle Malkin of my watchlist, it stays off! Mutter, mutter, grumble ...
 * Cheers, CWC 14:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal from GCC bug tracking team claims
Hi,

I don't understand why you removed my post. Although the bug report is invalid (as I admited), the claim made by Michael Matz is not. It is valid, he claimed so. I didn't put it out of context. I didn't distort. I didn't exagerate. I didn't lie. He confirmed it. At least one of his colleagues backed him up. So I don't see anything there that causes my criticism to be unfounded and that might be grounds for you to have removed it.

Could you please explain why you don't agree with Michael Matz from the GCC bug tracking team and think that the code is guaranteed to return 0x1000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.57.247 (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The short answer is ... no, there is no short answer.
 * Lots of people think of Wikipedia as a repository of contributors' knowledge. But it is something quite different: a repository of authoritative statements about various topics. (At least, that's what we're supposed to aim for. We often fall short of this goal.)
 * (Jargon alert: the "WP:" prefix means the word or phrase has a Wikipedia-specific meaning that probably won't be found in any dictionary.) Wikipedia articles should consist of WP:Verifiable statements based on WP:Reliable Sources. Comments on blogs, forums and bug trackers do not count as "WP:Reliable" no matter who they are from. SO we don't have an acceptable source for that criticism of GCC.
 * Another significant consideration is that the C specification allows GCC to do whatever it likes with separate variables. It would be quite legal to emit code that mallocs an object on function entry and frees it on function exit, for example. That would be a silly strategy on current CPUs, but there have been systems where such contortions were a good idea! So your example is an unexpectedness in GCC but not, strictly speaking, a bug.
 * I'll leave a message on User talk:83.132.57.247 with links to pages about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (Warning: quite a bit of reading, some fairly heavy.) Hope this helps — CWC 14:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Media Research Center
Hi Chris. Thanks for your intervening edit on the Media Research Center article. It solved the problem and confirmed my initial template/comment. I am liberal so I did not want to remove it myself and initiate an "edit war" which sometimes manifests on Wikipedia as a "political doctrine war". Thanks for your help. Best Regards, Steve... Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, no problem. And thanks for being careful. Cheers, CWC 02:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Janice Switlo not eligible for PROD
Unfortunately, Janice Switlo was proposed for deletion back in 2006, and articles that were previously prodded or sent to AfD are not eligible for the proposed deletion process. Of course, it's still subject to being nominated for deletion via AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. I'd forgotten about that. Thanks for the message. I've started an AfD about the article, hoping to get it improved or deleted. Cheers, CWC 00:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Your 13 Oct "welcome" to me
Considering how long I've been a registered user, it's weird that you issue me a welcome now. In response to your wish that I'll enjoy Wikipedia, I hate it and I would never again try to contribute to it; when I've tried, some self-important admin has always sprung to give me static. I consult Wikipedia only when I must and my only participation is to edit for punctuation and usage. Thanks for your presumably sincere welcome, but it's wasted. RJSterling 18:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjsterling (talk • contribs)


 * Well, I owe you two apologies. First, I should have left a more appropriate message. Second, I forgot to reply here. (I must stop using browser tabs as a to-do list on flaky machines.) I'm sorry.
 * As someone who often makes mistakes in punctuation and wording, I'm always glad to see people fixing those sort of problems. So thanks for doing that. Best wishes, CWC 15:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
...For your note and wishes. RJSterling 15:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjsterling (talk • contribs)

A note...
...to briefly mention that I undid an edit you recently made. I checked the 3 subsequent citations, and can't find support for that sentence in any of them -- but it is possible that I may have missed it. Could you double-check, please (and revert me if I screwed up)? I hope the holiday season is treating you well! Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hiya, Xenophrenic! Good to hear from you. I hope things are going well for you.
 * If memory serves, I added that claim with a source several weeks ago, and the source was one of Breitbart's websites. I need to go through the edit history, but haven't got energetic enough yet. If that fails, there's always Google ... (I may stick that sentence back in, with a cn tag, as an interim measure.) Cheers, CWC 12:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be very much appreciated. I've double-checked the sources, and still can't find the assertion that the video he posted was all that he had, and that he only obtained more of the video at a later date.  Any help you can provide on the sourcing would be appreciated. Thanks! Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It will take me a few days to get to this, sorry. I suspect that I put a source for the all-he-had-at-the-time claim in but someone took it out, which would explain why you found nothing. Maybe it wasn't that good a source? I don't remember.
 * There's another complication: Ms Sherrod is now suing Breitbart & co. This pro-Breitbart analysis includes a copy of the complaint. This is going to be ugly, IMO, mainly because the Pigford stuff is so ugly on multiple levels. Not feeling cheery, but wishing you the best, CWC 14:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * From CWC: not long after writing the preceding, a hardware failure cut me off from the Internet. (I am troubled by how much I was troubled by not having Net access ...) I'll try to find that source once I've caught up on LWN.net etc. CWC 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)