User talk:Mr Christopher

Signing
When you post to talk pages, it's normal to sign with ~ - this automagically produces your sig. and the date and time. If you just want to use your name, you can sign with, if you just want the time and date, sign with.

produces Guettarda

~ produces Guettarda 19:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

produces 19:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Guettarda 19:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Cartridge data project
You're one of the people I've noticed editing cartridge articles, so I'd like to invite you to join a discussion on creating a template for cartridge data, and generating tables for a large list of popular cartridges. The discssion started due to a comment here:

Talk:.50_BMG

and has been continued here:

User_talk:Avriette

If you have any comments, or would be willing to contribute data, please join in. If you know of other Wikipedians with a knowledge of cartrdiges, by all means copy this to them as well. scot 16:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment...
It would appear, by virtue of your contribution history, that you are a contrarian. Good for you. I would request, however, that when making comments upon the nature of my contributions, you make an effort to maintain a note of civility, and do not presume to lecture. My Kung-Fu Master always says, "The smallest man in the room is the one of whom you should be afraid." -- of course, his English in not that good. My point, Grasshopper, is that it is unwise to lash out at persons whom you do not know...because, you never know what kind of chops they have.

I'm not here to make enemies, nor am I here to win a popularity contest. I am here to contribute to an information base that I perceive to be an important educational element, and collaborate with persons who have the same, and only that, agenda. As a professional educator, I would not do that without evidentiary backing. And I don't. Just because I didn't have the reference at my fingertips, does not mean I made it up, or am exercising POV. Don't assume...bad ju-ju every time. Cheers! --Sadhaka 12:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-)
I hadn't logged in for quite a while, because I found I was spending way too much time here, but I finally decided to log in again since I've been making a fair number of anonymous edits, and I saw the message you left on my talk page. I'm glad someone out there appreciates the effort I tried to put into that article! I'm going to avoid edit-war prone topics for a while, as they can be quite draining, but I wish you the best if you're choosing give it a go. --Icarus 22:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

POV
Hello Mr Christopher, I saw your note on DanielCD's page. I looked at the alcoholism article and some of the other articles that you edited over the past few days. It appears that you put some pov edits in several related articles relating to alcoholism and 12-step programs. We need to look at the articles to see how we can re-word them and find verifiable reliable sources. -- FloNight  talk  10:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes there are several related subjects that I have studied over the years. When I came upon many of these articles they read like promotional/sales literature.  So I am open to your suggestions.  Mr Christopher 12:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think their are valid points on both sides. It's sometimes hard to remove POV without overdoing it and going a little POV the other way. That's why we work together, so we can have others point out our blind spots and create great articles that neither glorify or trash. NGOT... I like it better than NPOV. ;) --DanielCD 14:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Communication can be awkward using this message-and-wait system. Sometimes it takes a little patience. --DanielCD 15:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
Mr Christopher, my comment is about the series of changes you made to a group of somewhat related articles. In addition to the article changes, some of the talk pages had long comments where you expressed a strong pov. IMO, instead of this type of comment; it is better to research the topic and add text based on verifiable reliable sources. DanielCD is a kind and polite person that will discuss these issues. : ) Unfortunately, other Wikipedians are not so inclined. Sometimes it is because they are in a hurry and have already discussed the issue with lots of other people before you. Sometimes they are RUDE people : ( that you don't want to push into discussions because it will not be productive towards consensus.

To make my self more clear, I'm not talking about discussions about specific wording or evaluating overall what needs to be done to fix an article. Of course these type of discussions are necessary. I'm talking about engaging in lots of discussions or debates about our personal ideas or research. WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V together with WP:RS define the material that makes an article encyclopedic. Remember, the truth is not important in this regard. The issue is whether an idea is a majority pov, a minority pov, or a tiny minority pov. An idea can be completely wrong, but if it is accepted by the majority then it will get majority space in an article. Like it or not, this is the rule.

Mr Christopher, this is my opinion and interpretation of WP policy and guidelines. I'm making these suggestions to help you. If these suggestions are not helpful, then feel free to ignore. : )

I left a comment on Bradshaw's article. I'll leave comments on the rest of the articles, too. I might not do them all today, though. I have several other things ahead of it on my to do list. regards, FloNight   talk  19:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Flo, your suggestions are very helpful and welcome. Thanks.  I just left you a big ol' reply on your talk page.  Mr Christopher 20:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

State physician impairment programs
Hello Mr Christopher : ) Sorry so slow getting this to you.

This organization is an umbrella organization for the majority (not all) of State Physician Impairment programs. 

This page lets you search for descriptions of each state program. 

See Kentucky’s program as an example. 


 * A. Support (self help) group requirements:
 * AA
 * NA
 * Professionally facilitated


 * B. It requires Support (self help) group frequency:
 * Year 1: 3-4 times per week
 * Year 2: 3 times per week
 * Year 3: 3 times per week
 * Year 4: 3 times per week
 * Year 5: 2-3 times per week


 * C. Therapy or treatment requirement:
 * Physician co-facilitated group 1 time per week for 2 years.

Each state has a web site listed, also. You can find more details about each state. Hope this is useful. regards, FloNight   talk  22:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. I will send more links your way as I come across them. My bookmarks are a mess so it will take awhile to go through them. FloNight  talk  22:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

William A. Dembski
Hello Mr Christopher : ) I'm working on the The Princeton Theological Seminary section of the William A. Dembski bio. I've made some changes but I'm struck now. Unless someone else knows where to look for the sources, I'm going to have to start reading his work looking for mention of the incidents. Would like to avoid this blind searching. Are you familiar with his work. FloNight   talk  20:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * FloNightI am a Dembski observer but not a Dembski expert and I know that someone at the Pandas Thumb went to school at Princeton at the same time and has written his observations of Dembski there, but I don't recall his name or if his comments there were similar to the Princeton history at the Dembski article. I just got back in town and I have not had a chance to review your latest changes to the Dembski article but from what I saw the other day you are making some excellent contributions there.  The whole Dembski/IDC/Dicovery Institute are all mostly very good articles yet they are also mine fields that I approach with a good deal of caution.  Mr Christopher 02:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello : ) I tread lightly there, too. Looks like I need to make a trip to the library. FloNight   talk  16:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, Mr Christopher
I just wanted to thank you for what you said on the talk page of the alcoholism article. Very well put. All these paid professionals in the field of alcoholism want to do is rob drunks of their money and feed them full of lies. They actually help kill drunks through misinformation. But one thing they are not AA  counselors. They are alcoholism counselors. Not the same thing. There is no such thing, as there is no such thing as an AA counselor. Thanks again for your honest and keen input into this messed up perspective. Theyshallsee God 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright of the 12 steps
I just wanted to let you know that, contrary to what you said here, the twelve steps are still under copyright, and that copyright is held by the AAWS. According to U.S. copyright law, any text written after 1922 will still be protected by copyright, unless one of several specific conditions exist, which do not in this case. (The steps were copyrighted in 1939.) Thanks! Sarah crane 17:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks changes
Hi Mr. Christopher. Thanks for the message. I've responded to your changes on my talk page, and on the Starbucks discussion page. ScottW 01:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you. Now I'm going to get me a barn and hang this up in there! Mr Christopher 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Thanks for taking this on. Gitlow seems intent on turning Alcoholism into his own personal page. All of the bickering seems to prove the point that there is a lack of agreement about whether or not alcoholism is a disease or not, at least among concerned individuals!Medical Man 16:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. And hopefully gitlow will have to relinquish his role soon and start abiding my Wiki standards and practices.  It's frightening how far many AA biased medical doctors will go to silence any ideas that conflict with those that keep them in a position of power. The alcoholism thing is just one example.  In a strange way I want to thank him for giving the audience such a bird's eye view of how far the AMA/APA and AA biased treatment community will go to choke off information and competing ideas.  It is no owonder they have such a monopoly on ideas and such.  Forget the alcoholism article, that talk page is where you learn more about alcoholism and the treatment industry.  :-) Mr Christopher 16:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Request for assistance
I'm no admin, but I'm more than happy to give you a hand, if you so wish. If you do, please make it clear how you would prefer to communicate. --David.Mestel 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Advice, some serious and some not.
Copied from my talk page:

''Howdee, Flo. Hey I got a barnstar award the other day, I thouht you might be proud :-) And, on a more typical topic, we seem to a have another expert on the subject of alcoholism and he's insisting on writing it from the AMA/AA POV...''

Hello Mr Christopher : - ) Cool barnstar! I left a note on the Alcoholism talk page. Think that you are making good desicions. Mediation is a good idea and works if the involved editors all really want to find a solution. Stay positive and do not let the editor get under your skin. Take a break if it gets too heated. In these situations, I try to remind myself that the article is going to be on Wikipedia for a long time. If it does not read exactly right today it is not the end of the world. There is plenty of time to get it right.

Have you seen No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. This is excellent advice and I will enforce a block on any editor editing the alcoholism article and tries to pull that stunt! FloNight  talk  21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this weird or what!
This is weird, if not disturbing. We seem to be dealing with a person who apparently can't be convinced with overwhelming evidence and sound logic. Reminds me of a child who so desperately wants to believe in Santa Claus after being told the truth that he continues to believe.

Perhaps the person is incredibly stubborn, perhaps he's experiencing psychotic episodes, perhaps he feels the need to exert control over others, but for whatever reason he can't or won't process evidence in a logical and rational manner.

I'm really looking forward to mediation.Medical Man 19:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Dr Gitlow
Hi, Mr. Christopher. I'm planning on reverting my RFC on DrGitlow on the condition that he joins me and the other interested parties in a non-wiki based forum where we can discuss our differences. I'd specifically like to invite you to join us. I'm setting up a space at the Intellectual Icebergs forum so that this might be accomplished. I seriously think that the linear format of wikis is non-condusive to this kind of argument.

I've added to your entry on the request for mediation, but I think that the RfC process needs to occur first. Can we move this discussion to a threaded forum somewhere? Wiki make following the thread of conversation difficult.Robert Rapplean (aka Mythobeast) 01:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO, this RFC is very premature. Please do not take this route. There has been almost no attempt to discuss the issues on the talk page. Remember that in a content dispute both parties feel that only their position is correct. All parties need to be willing to discuss the issues to find a solution. It takes time for editors to work through the issues. FloNight   talk  01:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify. The RFC requires you to certify that attempts have been made to resolve the dispute and they have failed. I do not think true attempts to resolve the dispute using WP:Consensus and WP:DR have occurred. It is considered bad form to jump the gun and push for a RFC prematurely. I could be wrong, but I'm having trouble seeing how DrGitlow has broken any Wikipedia policies that would warrent this action. regards, FloNight   talk  01:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Flo, we are doing the best we know how. Will you please create us a space to discuss some of this?  I don't know how.  We have an issue where a medical doctor is out of control on the alcoholism article and some of us are at our wits ends as to what to do about it.  gitlow removed cited referenced as quickly as they are added if they criticize the AMA or aa based treatment inductry.  We've asked him to stop and he doesn't listen, heck he ignored your attempt to remind folks that Wiki has standards.  There are no admin/editors contributing to that article so he's thumbing his nose at Wiki standards.  Please give us some guidance as to how we should try and resolve this. Mr Christopher 02:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems he's at it again?:Talk:E. Morton Jellinek

Alcoholism
Thanks for your note. I'd be delighted to work constructively with you on the alcoholism article and look forward to the collaboration. I think we already know many of the areas around which we disagree, but I suspect we can put together an article that is both educational and useful for readers. Where should we start? Drgitlow 19:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Christopher, I have no intention of "owning" the AA page, and I am sorry if I have given that impression. the reason for my deletion of the AA and the law section was I felt that it didn't actually give any information actually pertaining to AA as an orgonization (which is the perpose of the AA page) but rather some random trivia revolving around several other subjects, that happened to mention AA. another reason for my edits was the fact that the page is noted as beeing "way too long" and lacking relative information. I am not trying to annoy anyone, but I would like people who log onto the AA page to get information about AA, not hearsay and personal opinions. all of my edits have been supported and referanced, and my reasons for deletes noted in the discussion bord. if I deleted some of your stuff I assure you it was not a personal attack (I have no idea what was writen by you). please inform me of what your philosophy is regarding the "rewrite" of this page, so that we will not butt heads in reviewing the page.Coffeepusher 14:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on how to rewrite this article. I still feel that the law and alcoholism section is misguided, and I will comment on the talk page for my reasoning. I also appriciate the tone of your message, I was afraid that I might have started a editing war with you and your message aliveated that concern.Coffeepusher 16:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Christopher, ok. I owe you a appology in both the way I have addressed you on the discussion page and in the error of my personal perseption of you. Your latest post on the AA talk page made me realize that not only have I "owned" the information on the AA Page(contrary to what I stated and really belived) but I have not been behaving well at all when it comes to my interactions with you. I really believe (in error) that there are two ways to see things, my way and people who havnt had my way explained to them properly. I will endevor to keep an open mind on things that I edit, and I really do apriciate the way you helped me out with the edits(you already know spelling is a major hinerance of mine, is there a wicki spell checker?). I look forward to working with you, and hope you consider me an ally.Coffeepusher 00:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha! thanks for the message. School kicked up a notch, and I havn't been doing any edits in a while (school, work, sleep when you can grab it). I havn't given up on the page, but it is nice to be missed.Coffeepusher 02:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for sending me a note. Since we started on my Talkpage, I've replied there to keep it together :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

PS - I just noticed on your Userpage that you like coffee. Ironically, my feelings about coffee meet most of the conditions for Alcoholism :) Seriously though, I thought your suggested intro was excellent and I was happy to support it.


 * Actually I don't think I wrote any of the definition, a couple of other folks there wrote it. Yeah as far as coffee goes let's just say I'm in denial!  Mr Christopher 04:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL about coffee-denial! And regardless of who put the words together, I think you picked the right time and place to drop them in and get the ball rolling in a positive direction. In fact, I think you could really use the current consensus to insert it into the article; there seems to be general satisfaction with the idea of tweaking it a bit (by cutting the ethanol hyphen )and dropping it in. It can always be tweaked again later, but you got some good results to start with :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah in spite of how nutty it can get we seem to be making progress which I have never really seen there. And even if we fail to get consensus on the first two sentences at least we'll have a better idea of why and then we know what work needs to be done.  Mr Christopher 04:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, caffeine dependence is NOT a diagnosis listed in DSM-IV. However, my understanding from the folks in the addictive disease workgroup for DSM-V is that it will likely be added. Apparently (and this isn't my area of expertise or interest at all), there's a feeling that sufficient and significant research has demonstrated a pattern of signs and symptoms sufficient for the new addition. I think that will be a tough sell, but it will be worth following the workgroup deliberations to see what they end up doing. On the other hand, I suppose I can start a Wiki page for "Caffeine Dependence" and open with "The disease of caffeine dependence is..." just to watch the discussion page. :) Drgitlow 05:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Does that mean that my insurance company will cover my coffee-related expenses? Is it possible the government will provide a monthly allotment of coffee beans if I can show a medical need? Or will they try to wean me off the demon bean by forcing me to drink tea? I can see a lot of controversy brewing here :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Better yet, a harm reduction approach could involve chocolate! I can see the long lines forming at 6:30am for the cocoa clinic. Alkermes would work on a monthly chocolate injection. And docs would have to test the samples brought in by the drug reps. I like this already. Drgitlow 13:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Other Reply
I think you'll find that I take constructive criticism better than any human you meet. I have a good deal of respect for you, and only wish to come to an understanding between our ideas. Robert Rapplean 01:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Progress
I just wanted to thank you for your support, and your willingness to compromise for the sake of the article. I'm very encouraged by everyone's recent efforts to work together :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We do seem to be making progress. I'm waiting to get Robert and Centrx's thoughts on the #3 you proposed.  Mr Christopher 17:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As am I. Have you seen the newest resident of your Userpage? I think he likes you :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed I did, nice timing too. I have been introducing my almost three year old daughter to the world of butterflies in our back yard.  Monarch butterflies love chomping on our passion vines! Mr Christopher 20:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (oops, edit conflict)You were totally correct in your comments on my Talkpage and I've reverted myself until we hear from RR. I only made the change becuase Centrx suggested that sometimes it's best to keep moving forward. Since he has more than 10 times the experience of the rest of us combined I'm generally inclined to take him at his word :) However, given our somewhat fragile circumstances I'm more than happy to revert and wait for full consensus. Thanks for helping keep us on track ! BTW - I hope your daughter liked the butterfly. Locally we have a moth that is often mistaken for a Monarch and it's always a pleasure to watch them flutter around the garden :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, I'm not bailing from the Alcoholism page. I just feel that I've already said what I have to say about the "Alcoholism as a Disease" argument, and from everyone else's response, I'm obviously alone in feeling that way, so there's no point in repeating myself. Robert Rapplean 23:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mr. C, I added a comment to the vote on Alcoholism Talkpage, but may have been too jetlagged for even such a simple thing as that. Based on Centrx's comments I assumed the vote was about the editors' debate in the Talkpage, but your comment left me thinking the vote was on the content of the article itself. If the latter case I need to strikeout and change my vote since I'm quite in agreement with that. Can you help clarify for me? Thanks! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks EL
Hi - thanks for mentioning your comment on the Starbucks talk page. I have replied on that page. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks
Hello. Although I completely agree with your edits to prevent Nwe's attempts to use this article as a soapbox, your reverts put you at risk of being offside WP:3RR. Just wanted to give you the heads up in case you had lost track. Next time (if there is a next time) Nwe reinserts the text in question, my suggestion is that we should report him as violating 3RR rather than continuing what is fast becoming an edit war. Skeezix1000 15:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your input and concern. The Wiki Enterprise template states ''This article is about or directly concerns enterprises, and articles about ongoing enterprises policy must therefore be adhered to. Specifically, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about enterprises should not be posted to this article or its talk page(s). Such material must be removed without hesitation. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals.'' Therefore the three-revert rule does not apply. And I do plan to report him/her if he adds the material back. Thanks again Mr Christopher 15:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * oh, that's interesting. Good point.  At least now, though, I can't be accused of a double-standard by Nwe, leaving him a 3RR warning on his talk page, without at least also having raised it with you on yours.  Skeezix1000 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So you like coffee big man?
Because if you do...you're cool in my book. You run a coffee shop or some such? I was just looking through the Starbucks wiki and saw your name pop up, it's like you wrote the history of the company yourself. Shadowrun 02:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design
Ive heard that we have several admins who watch the intelligent design talk pages. I'm starting to think this is not true. You wrote a series of accusations calling me a shill for John Umana, admitting that you do not assume good faith in my regard, insinuating that i'm paid to edit Wikipedia and calling my lack of action when it comes to editing this article and instead making my case on the talk pages first "innapropriate". If you wish to discuss with me my views on the Intelligent Design article in that talk area i'll be happy to share them with you. If you wish to attack me personally i'll refer you to the Wikipedia rules of conduct.Bagginator 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sign your damn posts, Baggy. BTW, NPA refers to ad homs, not ad rems.  Also, BTW, I refer you to WP:AGF, which states in part, "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary".  You've offered enough damned evidence, Baggy.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

AA Protection
I've submitted a request of semi-protection. Hopefully they'll put it on soon.--Twintone 02:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Old-school citations
Don't make me tell CNN what you and I have been doing once a month behind your wife's back. Wjhonson 07:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That depends. Are you a wealthy evangelist ? Wjhonson 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You are too funny, sir
Removed "original research?" Is that what we call WoW/Haggard speculation? You make my day.--Chalyres 23:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ted Haggard...
Is a bottom: http://radaronline.com/features/2006/11/confessions_of_an_angry_hustler_rev_ted_haggard.php

just like all good paladins, i guess?


 * What is a paladin? :-) Mr Christopher 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, what he supposedly plays on WoW?--Chalyres 21:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with WoW either, other than I belive it is a computer game or something that was spoken about on the talk page. I'm not very hip am I? :-(  Mr Christopher 22:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but apparently you don't qualify for membership to any "gamer-geek" societies.--Chalyres 22:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is true yet I do enjoy some WWII online game every now and then, I have already forgotten the name though...It's a garden variety shoot 'em up. Mr Christopher 22:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record: paladin (character class) --Chalyres 22:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion would be appreciated: Talk:Ted_Haggard, cf. User:Odometer's desire to remove the "parking lot altercation". Am I just being overly protective? — Coelacan | talk 07:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. By the way, if you share my general intrigue with evangelical scandals, I've got a special one for you. "Carlton Pearson's church, Higher Dimensions, was once one of the biggest in the city, drawing crowds of 5,000 people every Sunday. But several years ago, scandal engulfed the Reverend. He didn't have an affair. He didn't embezzle lots of money. His sin was something that to a lot of people is far worse ..." That link is where I heard it on NPR. — coe l acan t a lk  — 05:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

ID
You need to close the cite and ref tags on this edit. I'd do it for you, but then my sig will appear instead of yours. Guettarda 16:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to close tags. The quote has an open tag (otherwise everything just disappears). Since your sig is in the ref tag the ~ isn't automagically converted to your sig. If I close the '''tag

The article uses  instead of the usual tag. Using this allows you to re-use the ref elsewhere in the article simply by placing instead of the whole long reference. This has the added advantage of not creating duplicate references in the reference section. Guettarda 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it and thanks for your help Mr Christopher 17:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the Age
of five? five years old? not fifteen but five???? i may have developed a little late, but FIVE FREAKING YEARS OLD????? --Chalyres 11:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

TMLC
Is TMLC better characterised as "Christian" or "Catholic"? In either case, wouldn't it be more informative to say "conservative Xian/Catholic"? Guettarda 03:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean as they are described in the Kitzmiller article? Indeed you are correct.  I just changed the Kitzmiller description to match the one found in the Thomas More Law Center article.  And thanks for dropping by Kitzmiller.  I get so impatient/weary with the IDers promoting the DI POV that I find myself spending too much time being sarcastic so a second and third opinion is helpful.  Mr Christopher 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I was following the discussion, but I figured that I didn't have anything useful to add to what the two of you had said, so I hadn't bothered to add anything. Guettarda 03:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilly
Please don't post things you do not understand. It is well known that O'Reilly denies being a conservative. This constitutes bias according to wikipedia standards. Tim Long 01:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Graham
The controversy was over his statement, not his revision. Tim Long 00:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent falling
I suppose perhaps you've seen this?  By the way, i'm from the states, but living temporarily in canada. grew up evangelical/fundamentalist, and took several courses in young-earth creationism in church (you know about the moon-dust proof?) --Chalyres 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if you you're saying that the moon-dust proof is a great one for creationism or if its one of those bogus arguments that make creationists look a bit daft. But the fact is that creationists use dust accumulation estimates that are at least a hundred years old and are not valid.  By 1965, lunar scientists determined that the level of dust accumulation from meteorites was quite low, and they weren't, in fact, concerned about astronauts who walk on the moon would sink into the lunar dust.  Orangemarlin 16:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fritalian
Regarding your comments about the Fritalian article, my speculations are grounded in fact due to the rivalry between Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks. Do you have any advice on where to find support for the implications of the commercial?

Thanks!

Yeyewa 00:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeyewa, sorry but I am unfamiliar with this rivalry - I haven't read anything about it. I am going to address more of the general points in detail on that talk page.  Mr Christopher 03:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your congrats
Hi Mr. Christopher :-) Thanks for your congrats and support. Glad to help with the welcome message. Take care, --FloNight 15:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR
You're on 3. As am I. Please don't get banned like user:Raspor will (WP:AN/3RR) Humps 22:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I just realized that. What a nutty situation :-) Cheers! Mr Christopher 22:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving disruptive discussions
Just move them, there are plenty there that will support you, as evidenced by the response at Raspor's RFC. FeloniousMonk 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheers! Mr Christopher 23:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:DoNotFeedTroll.jpg|60 px]] please don't feed his self-justification... dave souza, talk 23:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done a pretty good job of avoiding handing out cheese and crackers but man oh man that "crusaders" comment took me over the top. What a nutty comment.  The Puppy's reaction was appropriate though.  Mr Christopher 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV warning
I just put up a new article at Support for evolution summarizing the scientific, religious etc support for evolution. I realized that although there are many creationist articles, evolution mainly has science articles, or an article or two about the history of various parts of the dispute. I am told that summarizing the support that exists on one side is nonneutral (although I do include a section describing support for the creationist side). How is it nonneutral to give the objective information? I am not saying who is right. But it is a bit hard to deny that support exists. See below: --Filll 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While I am in support of evolution, I do find that this article is difficult to put into the light of a neutral point of view. :: Colin Keigher ( Talk ) 03:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would dispute this. The topic is that support exists. Whether that support is justified or not is another issue. I have copious references from both sides and it is a bit hard to deny that support exists in the scientific, religious and other communities. How is that being biased to summarize the support that exists?--Filll 03:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No offense but this is not an article that I have any interest in. I don't see the point in it.  Mr Christopher 23:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Billy Graham
Sorry for the late reply...no apology necessary. I was bothered by the original state of that AIDS comment also and sought to correct it. I, too, am occasionally guilty of not reading an entire section, email, etc. No biggie. ++ Arx Fortis 02:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it took me all of five minutes.
I ... I can't do it. He's asking me if I disagree with you and I can't see where on EARTH he got that. I ... I thought you and I, we were on the same page? But apparently not? I ... I ... I hurt. I'm gonna go bust some vandals now, that's what I do best. --  Merope  19:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's painful, I know. Busting vandals?  Book 'em, Dano! Mr Christopher 19:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, now. This wooly liberal wiki asks you to be kind to the poor innocent dears and don't, for goodness sake, feed them. More to the point, DONT put comments on the RfC page: use the RfC talk page. ... dave souza, talk 17:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * dave speak english. Did I edit the wrong page somewhere? Show me where and I'll edit it. Mr Christopher 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I saw what you were talking about :-)  Thanks for moving my comments to the correct spot.  Mr Christopher 19:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, shutup. :P
I guess I don't like being called a bitter and hateful athiest, all right? But at least he pretty much put the nail in the coffin, I think. I added this diff to the ANI discussion here. --  Merope  14:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How about we split the difference and call ourselves bitter and hateful darwinists? :-) Speaking of darwin and atheism (and hateful bitterness of course) I'm late for my weekend murder spree and bloody carnage! Mr Christopher 15:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You are a punk and a bully
Those who can, contribute. Those who can't, go around reverting, Bowdlerizing and censoring like you do. Struct 17:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that reverting inflammatory, unsourced material (also known as original research or POV pushing) from an article(s) constitutes "bullyism", censorship or "punkdom". My revert did comply with Wikipedia guidelines and policies.  Prior to your wholesale edits to the various ID related articles you were advised on Wiki policy regarding WP:V for which you ultimately seem to have ignored.  Again, I fail to see the bully, censor and punk connection.  Mr Christopher 20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are so right. The Evolution/Creation pages do bring out the most wonderful behavioral characteristics in fellow Wikipedians.  I know I've been guilty, so I am trying to take a few bong hits (I am in California, and I am kidding) before reading anything here.  Well, Struct and Raspor are birds of a feather.  Sigh.  Orangemarlin 20:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Bong hits" Now THERE'S an idea whose time has come (comedy of course, I would never advocate anything illegal). Mr Christopher 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to disengage
I have requested that Raspor stop engaging in debates over Intelligent Design as they violate WP:NOT and do not help with the larger goal of encyclopedia-building. I would like to ask you to likewise disengage. If he is looking for a debate on ID, evolution, and creation science, he can find a web forum offwiki. If you have any questions, please let me know either via my talk page or e-mail. (Just ignore that big ol' Wikibreak banner--I clearly am.) --  Merope  02:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

?
Charles? Where's that? on the christianity and slavery page? i couldn't find it. or are we talking about Clement Clark Moore (the night before christmas sod?). By the way, are there any third ways between evolution and creationism/intelligent design that you're aware of? I find it fascinating that either side (Dawkins/Pinker/etc vs. Dobson/Haggard/that crazy group in seattle/etc.) really, really, really have huge issues fitting homosex into their whole system. darwinists can never really explain why homos like me don't reproduce and yet keep popping up in future generations(i do really love the "sneaky male theory") and the ID people just call it sin and get to be all camp/gay dramatic when they get caught renting prostitutes... --Chalyres 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm posting here an excerpt of a blog i wrote a few months back on the subject. Feel free to delete/archive it if it makes your user/discussion page too long. As you can see, i've found the striking similarities between fundamentalist monotheism and evolutionary bio/psycho-logy quite fascinating, though i was at the moment more interested in how dawkins/pinker/harris were all arguing for capitalist/free-market stuff from this same world-view.

Suggested "scientific" reasons why people are gay.

Sneaky Male Theory: The one i mentioned before. It suggests that men who cannot compete in "masculine" (that's the word they use, by the way) tasks purposefully acts like women (that's also what they say) to put alpha males off guard. The theory goes, since that Alpha Males would never want an effeminate flamer to come with them hunting, and since they're pretty damn certain those fags would ever actually fuck the women left behind, they're left alone long enough for the gay man to "slip it in" behind the alpha's back.

Fertility Assistants: Since gay men attract women (because women aren't threatened by fags) and spend a lot of time with women, women get all this extra testosterone in the air which then makes them respond by becoming more fertile. Therefore, women who are surrounded by gays can have more children and, because one of the explanations of gayness suggests that high hormonal levels/high birth levels result in more gay babies (either because of all that estrogen in the boy fetus's blood or because of birth order theories), gays don't need to sexually reproduce.

We've-messed-up-a-gene-somehow: Dawkins cites this as his favorite theory. The gene that makes men gay was actually meant to do something else but because of something in modern society, it makes people gay instead of say, giving them large ears or hazel eyes.

The Passive Mother-Gay gene: If a man is gay, genetics might suggest that his sister will have the gay gene and will pass it down to her children, which the gay man (their uncle) will support in order to ensure that the gay gene that he isn't passing down himself gets replicated in his sister's children. That is, it's your gay uncle's best interest that you survive. I don't have a gay uncle.

Gene Richards: Sorry. not really a theory.

Now, if you compare these reasons to the James Dobson camp (Daddy didn't show you his penis enough, you're mother was too strong, etc.) one starts to see a pattern of something i can only call:

The Gay Problem: the refusal of sexual deviants to ever adequately fit into any powerful ideology's understanding of the world, to make Evangelists fall and Evolutionists blush, to make Fascists wear snazzy uniforms and Capitalists sell cologne to men, Communists build big "daddy-statues" and Catholics build big cock-head basilicas and wear cock-shaped hats.

Worse, go back and try to find mention of lesbian in any of the above theories. Not there. Also, if it were up to the Dawkins frowny-pants, women would still just be baby-machines. Just like the fundamentalist muslims/jews/christians want.--Chalyres 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete this from my talk page, are you kidding? This is the best stuff on it.  I like the "sneaky male theory" best.  I've witnessed it in action and some use the old "sometimes I wonder what sex with a woman would be like" approach.  That always works.  You'll have to start a new article, possibly scientific theories on the biological cause of gaydom :-) But I wonder what causes hetero action?  Mr Christopher 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm considering it, but i'm waiting to see how my support for another user with a minority opinion about wider definitions of slavery pans out before i try to do anything with a broader page (i think i'm already on an admin's bad side for that and for having an anti-authoritarian analysis of admins, anyway.
 * i just joined the LGBT project, but i think that'll end up counting against me eventually (lots of gays have too much riding on biological arguments for their existence, and unfortunately always have, so anyone arguing against using science to justify human behaviour has to navigate between people who fear concentration camps and people who want to build them.) (this is analogous to my distrust of both ID and Dawkins).  The problem extends back from pre-prussian germany into the present--if homosex is genetic, than it's natural but also subject to the eventual logics of eugenics (it can be bred out).  If it's not biological, than it can be changed (haggard, etc.) and is subject to legislation.

--Chalyres 01:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design
This sort is unecessary. Frustration with a user(quite understandable in this case) should not prompt personal attacks and incivility. JoshuaZ 20:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I hear you Mr Christopher 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, it's good to see you back. Guettarda 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir! Mr Christopher 22:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just read through the discussion pages for ID. what a mess. i'm staying very, very, very far away from that one and instead sticking with editing less controversial topics, like "Slavery in America," or maybe "Abortion." You brave man. --Chalyres 00:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah sometimes I think do I want to work on the ID article today, or get a root canal instead...Mr Christopher

Talk:Jonathan_Corrigan_Wells
Please take care to focus your talk page discussion on how to improve the article- talk pages are not general forums for discussion of the subject matter. This is a sensitive issue and some of your remarks there are needless inflammatory. Friday (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I have been getting especially impatient with a few folks lately. Mr Christopher 23:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It happens all too easily. Thanks for being understanding.  Friday (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, 'tis such a maddening page, is it not? Did you buy the Moonies' book of the month yet?  ;)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

TED HAGGARD
You keep defending Ted Haggard claiming he is not gay and removing all gay sub categories on him. I think someone who has sex with men is considered gay - or at least bi. If you deny it - does not make you not something if the evidence proves you engage in the activity. You removed the category - EX-GAYS and even his church now claims after counseling he is no long gay. So if you are no longer gay - you must have been gay at one time! See the article from our local island newspaper. http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070207/int/int1.html Petur


 * I am not defending anything nor am I claiming he is not gay. I am abiding by WP:NOR Please read the numerous comments on this subject on the talk page, this ihas been discussed at length.  We as editors have no right to determine who is gay, who is not gay, who is kinda gay but not totally gay, and who used to be gay but is no longer gay.  That's called original research and it is frowned upon.  Besides, Wikipedia is not here to out people.  When Haggard claims he is gay, or says he used to be gay, then we should add those categories.  Mr Christopher 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help in getting rid of the attack article about me. What you did was a great example of the true WP spirit. All the best. Steve Dufour 06:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah that deal was just too weird for words. Mr Christopher 16:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Dufour
I agree almost completely with your actions. However, the letter to the editor is pretty clearly him and is therefore an acceptable source. However, some of the unsourced info possibly runs afoul of BLP. I'm therefore removing it. JoshuaZ 21:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The notability review thing is fairly new, I dont know how much policy support or such there is of it. I would therefore suggest you AfD it. JoshuaZ 22:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. --HailFire 13:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys! Mr Christopher 16:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Starbucks Workers Union
I have reverted your recent edit of Starbucks Workers Union, and have provided an explanation on the talk page. Richard Myers 00:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And I have reverted your POV edit and expalined on the talk page. In short to adopt union jargon is to adopt the union's POV in the article itslef which is discouraged here. Calling employees "workers" would be find on a union blog but not an encyclopedia.   Mr Christopher 00:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, i don't mean to intrude on an obviously touchy subject, but i think worker might be a little more appropriate in several situations. i actually read the article just to go rough up anyone picking on you, kind mr. christopher, but methinks worker is actually a bit more useful in some of the places. few reasons, beyond which i won't intervene (i make espresso at home with my fantastic la pavoni piston machine, and haven't been in a starbucks in years and never in a union).

so, here we are
 * people who work in the service industry are more often than not, at least in my experience, referred to as Service Workers.
 * Prostitutes tend to be referred to as Sex Workers
 * people who work in factories are Factory Workers
 * we also have the distinction of White-collar and Blue-collar Workers.
 * the suggestion that worker is a union definition doesn't square with SEIU, the Service Employees...
 * employee and worker are in many cases interchangeable, of course, and "workers working" is just plain silly (i hope that isn't the cause of all of this fuss, since anyone with half a prosaic soul should be able to accept "employees working" there).

I'm posting this here instead of on the swu page to keep out of the fray too much, but might i suggest you take this into consideration? cheers,--Chalyres 11:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Chalyres, this is good information. I am going to look at some of the media cites (mainstream)in the article(s) and see what the media calls Starbucks employees.  I'm also going to check a few online encyclopedias and see how they handle it.  Mr Christopher 15:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

dawkins
i read the selfish gene years ago...at first i loved it, being the ex-christian nihilist goth that i was, until i realised that it really made no sense except as a religious argument. but if you haven't read it, it might be worth doing so. people follow him like american leftists follow chomsky and neo-cons swoon over christopher hitchens, though really all three men are just saying the same thing over and over with oh-so-little style and desperately no imagination.

Dawkins has a FAQ (of course he does...). that contains excerpts of the his newer gay theory-ish, but he ends up admitting that it's still a problem. There's also (though i don't think he mentions fags at all) a bbc radio show called In Our Time, which is the greatest of pleasures (the brits actually expect radio listeners to be intelligent, it's odd) in which dawkins debates mary midgely, his secular arch-enemy (very little coverage is ever given to the fact that dawkins is not just opposed by people who want to burn him at the stake). the link to the program is. while you're on the bbcradio4 site, consider. absolutely unrelated, but only the brits would make up such a game show. and not to overly plug radio4, but this will make you cry laughing:. just click on listen to latest edition on any of those.

back to dawkins, there's also a great review of The God Delusion in Harper's magazine, i think either the october or november issue, but it's not archived on the web, which shows precisely why some people think dawkins is as fundamentalist as the christians he's arguing with.

Oh. would you mind doing me a favor? i'm having a bit of a discussion at the talk page on bono about unwarranted criticism. it be kind of nice to have someone else look into my argument vs. theirs. 

thanks, punk. --Chalyres 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bono? I thought he was dead? And I always liked Cher the best :-) Real quick (I am about to go on a "holiday" as they say) I read the talk page and quite frankly it is not clear what the issues are and the criticism section is not that clear either.  I need to read it a few more times.  It seems you and another person are suggesting the criticism section be more inclusive and others are not so sure.    The humanitarian related criticisms of him are few and narrow (he moved to a country with a lower tax burden, he snuggles up to guys like Blair and Bush for whatever reason) so you're not asking to add a monster amount of information.  In fact some improvements and small additions to what is already there would likley do the trick (I tried to make one sentence more clear but I'm not sure how well that came off).

Dawkins - no time now but I will check out all the links and such when I get back next week. Looks promising and it will be interesting to hear the opinion of a prominant biologist on the subject of homosex and such. I have yet to read anyone who makes a bit of sense on the subject and it sounds like he'll be a snoozer as well, but still interesting.

Cheers you damn, dirty ape! Mr Christopher 22:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on IWW article
Well, from a cursory glance, it doesn't appear to be a flagrant violation of NPA. I would recommend that you seek mediation. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful -- I'm really busy in real life. --  Merope  16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help with the Bill W. dispute
The all of the Twelve Step related articles on wikipedia are in sore need of some serious work. I'm currently finishing research for the Emotions Anonymous article (I'll watch your page if you want to leave comments here :). -- Craigtalbert 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Bed day and Astrology as Pseudoscience
Hello,

I guess that you had a rough day to tackle when you wrote to advise about my practices.

Just look at how long ago I already got the message from other prompt editors. Also be kind enough to look at the nature of my recent contributions.

Sincerely, Midas touch 07:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey request
Hi, Mr Christopher I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Challenged books
I am reraising an issue on challenged books not belonging on the banned books page. See here. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Do Not Vandalize Legitimate Edits of Oil Spill Article
Please do not vandalize legitimate edits of Oil spill articles to push your personal political agenda. You will be reported to Admins if you continue to do so.

Sean7phil (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Mr Christopher! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created  is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Stan Katz -

Mind Control
Hi. A new section has been added to the mind control article's talk page concerning the article's POV. I notice you made some contributions to the talk page before; I think your perspective could be useful again. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)