User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris/Archive 2

No, not all have sinned and fallen short
To the best of my knowledge, I have never added a BLP violation to a single BLP, let alone edit-warred to include BLP violations the way ChrisO did. I asked that you provide diffs to the contrary and I note that you have not done so. I suggest that you end this line of accusations before you dig yourself any further into a hole. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And I asked you to read what I wrote. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

� On a more serious note, we do need more non-scholarly sources on scientific articles. Clearly, the notable viewpoint of the Insane Clown Posse has been omitted - or more likely actively suppressed - from our articles on rainbow, magnetism, and giraffe. I mean, really: muhfuckin' magnets - how do they work? (There's independent secondary-source coverage of their viewpoint right there). Wikipedia is biased in favor of an SPOV, and against those who believe, like the Posse, that "magic everywhere in this bitch." This isn't a science textbook. Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope eloquently limned our encyclopedic ideal:
 * Ah. A WikiProject whose stated goal is to "further the acceptance of cryptozoology amongst the general public." I see absolutely nothing horrifyingly wrong about that statement of purpose. Let's join. MastCell Talk 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that has to go. And has. Let's hope that doesn't become an issue. It probably will though :( NW ( Talk ) 21:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I kind of admire their honesty, actually. It's refreshing to see someone unashamedly express their desire to use Wikipedia as a tool of persuasion and promotion. I prefer that sort of candor to the usual fig leaf about just wanting to balance the unfair suppression of pro-Nessie sources. MastCell Talk 21:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Careful, you're edging close to getting a whole host of complaints from the "pro-unproven baloney" crowd telling you exactly how their situation is completely different from something like the Loch Ness Monster. NW ( Talk ) 22:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you calling the Loch Ness monster "unproven baloney"? I'll remind you that photos and sympathetic coverage of Nessie abound in the lay press. Are you saying that only peer-reviewed or scientific sources are acceptable, you SPOV-pusher? I mean, sure, "scientists" might reject Nessie photos as obvious hoaxes, but journalists, motivated by their greater integrity, commitment to the search for truth, and the democratic marketplace of ideas and maybe by the fact that their jobs depend on regularly producing sensational, attention-grabbing scoops have clearly determined otherwise. Who are we to say that one view is more "correct" than the other? We're just an aspiring serious, respectable reference work. MastCell Talk 22:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. NW ( Talk ) 22:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no you din't just edit one of my comments. O tempora! O mores! MastCell Talk 04:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We are none of us perfect. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sound familiar? That's NPOV in a nutshell, ninjas. MastCell Talk 05:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Gotta love this quote:
 * In response to accusations that the group has changed its style and gone soft, Bruce calls the song "classic ICP," noting that the group has always included one or two deep and meaningful songs on every album
 * Deep and meaningful. Got that? :) Guettarda (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Assumes facts not in evidence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, now that you've seen the ICP video, watch this and tell me which one is intended as parody. MastCell Talk 21:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I followed your arbitration guide but it didn't seem to help much. Of course, I was one of the last people to enter evidence so maybe mine was too late. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah. If you followed the guide you know that they basically ignore the Evidence and Workshop pages, so you don't need to worry about having been too late. I could have written that PD three months ago. Even the humorously intended "vandal version" was very close in substance to the actual PD, close enough that I've half-seriously wondered if it was written by an insider. (OK, less-than-half seriously, but still...)  Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Lennon reference
OK, I've read this several times and still can't figure out the Lennon reference. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You Can't Do That. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There was me thinking it was bagism, shagism, this-ism, that-ism... pablo 20:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was All You Need Is Love. -Atmoz (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The way things have been lately, going Cold Turkey on Wikipedia sounds better and better. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you know it ain't easy these days. . . dave souza, talk 21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever Gets You thru the Night. BTW, was this edit summary meant to be a Lennon reference or was it just a coincidence? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not meant to be a song reference specifically, though of course it fits. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Want to get back to Query regarding policy change / suspension � not that I want to be negative, but "PD says unsourced negative or controversial information is acceptable" should surely be unacceptable? Ok, not strictly Lennon, but I'm so tired and am trying to show some prudence here. . . dave souza, talk 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Remedy: All reverts must be explained on talk page with a Beatles reference
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * [Don't worry] about the arbcom case; it will be over soon enough. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry !
Just saw this weird edit conflict; sorry! Do you really have a Rhodesian Ridgeback? They are so cool. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, these things happen. My favorite description of Rhodesians is that "Many people just aren't prepared for the willful disobedience and hard-headedness in this breed." After all, they say people choose dogs who behave like themselves... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that why I loved my lab? :) I swear, if I had ever been robbed, he would have smothered the criminal with kisses.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Boris, that's a horrible thing for you to say about people from another country. And nowadays they're called Zimbabweans. First they have to put up with Smith, then Mugabe, now you just pile on the grief. ...-- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Long live the cabal
Looks like you have them fooled into thinking that you are a constructive editor. It was a close thing. Anyway we at the cabal wish you a happy editing future and ask you not to forget who your comrades are. You do know what a stolypin carriage is don't you? Siberia is not that far and more volunteers are needed. To the Motherland, Marx and Lenin Comrade Boris and here's another to uncle Joe. Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The might of the nation was wielded by one; / Viva la Joe Stalin! / He ain't half beating the shit through the hun; / Viva la Joe Stalin! - the only source I know for this is Milligan but he claims it was a common song William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Through every nook and every cranny the wind blew in on poor old granny' - Milligan Polargeo 2 (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow up comment(s)
Hope you don't mind me continuing our discussion here? Just wanted to say a couple more things that weren't germane to the ongoing discussion.. First off, good job putting a giant question mark over my head, when I first saw your edit, I thought you were directly editing my reply, and I was going "Bwuh?" mentally.. a minute later I realized what you had done.. I think that's a good application of Wiki-Aikido :)..

Secondly, I wanted to discuss your contention that this was all an excuse to "Get" WMC (such as The whole purpose of the case was to get WMC's head on a pike.). I never got that feeling at all, at least from the Arbs who came up with the decision. after all, if that was the whole point, we wouldn't have seen a first draft decision that asked WMC to leave the area without any formal finding against him.

In my opinion (mine and mine only), WMC was.. well, I was going to say his own worst enemy, but considering some of those who chose to array themselves against him, that doesn't really apply.. but I think it's safe to say he did himself and his cause no credit during the interminable months that made up the case. I'd go so far as to say that his actions set himself up to end up topic banned (I saw someone comment of 8 significant edit wars to break out during the case, WMC was a primary participant in seven of them).

Anyway, wasted enough space and electrons with my ramblings. Hope this clears things up SirFozzie (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We wouldn't have seen a first draft decision that asked WMC to leave the area without any formal finding against him. Um, the first draft PD has three formal findings against WMC. Indeed I think you've "cleared things up," though I suspect we are interpreting this phrase in different ways. Now run along back to WR like a good boy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right, Boris. Compare the Israel-Palestine naming dispute, in which deflagging Jayjg was the only non-negotiable and predetermined result, with a number of other editor sanctions casually arranged around it. The more bothersome question is, why was Connelly targeted? The answer, I believe, is hiding in plain sight: WMC is urged to contribute in other areas of the project, e.g. those in which he has no professional background, to prove that he is first and foremost a "good Wikipedian" rather than a subject-matter expert, and that he is willing to humbly accept the authority of the committee. Good "Wikipedians," on the other hand, are free to contribute to the topic area even if they know nothing at all about the science. Even vandals can contribute. But why would anybody in his right mind want that? Well&if subject matter expertise was desired, then what the heck are the arbitrators doing judging the case? Why are they in charge of anything on the project, besides those matters in which they are personally competent? The same is true of administrators generally. The presence of real competence and understanding isn't just underprioritized, it's a threat to their egos and sense of entitlement. If Wikipedia is ever fixed, among the first consequences is that administrators' opinions would no longer matter. No one can know this better than the arbitrators themselves, even the least thoughtful of which must at some level be aware that he would never be selected to run a real encyclopedia. If Wikipedia is a game, on the other hand, then their lordship makes perfect sense, for their position proves them expert players. It is the triumphal reassertion of radical Wikipedianism by those who benefit from it the most.24.18.132.13 (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Email sent to the secret mailing list Administrator
Forward the mail to at least member nr. 4 :) .Count Iblis (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no member number 4. There also are no members number 1-3 or 5-17. You must not expect a message by 1800 UTC tomorrow confirming our lack of plans for the issue not discussed in our previous communique, which was never sent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Your talk page is screaming...
Hi, please archive me! :) Hope you are well, and it takes forever to download this page.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Since it's you, I'll try to trim it down. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A talk page is like your office desk. How does the typical office desk of a professor look like? Count Iblis (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hah! I'm tempted to post a pic. It makes my talk page look spartan. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't need to post a pic, I've seen the disasters of desks by just looking at my own. :) Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin says...
MastCell Talk 03:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Request
Hello: In case you are having a bit of unfamiliarity with sockpuppetry allegations, you might consider reading this once, specifically this quote "The tool [Checkuser] should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute."

Your allegations, baseless at best, suggest that you are trying to put unnecessary pressure on me. TheEngineer Ask 05:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously he has found out that you have really strong opinions on the spelling of Cricket Captains and use this allegation to squeeze him out of one of the areas where he has been mostproductive! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed that EFV has cut and pasted the same warning onto my talk page as on your talk page. Especially considering that, if anything, I was defending EFV against the suggestion of being a sock. --Merlinme (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, the question isn't so much whether this account is a sockpuppet (although the Bayesian in me thinks the pre-test probability is non-negligible). The issue is that we now have accounts which contribute nothing to content, and essentially nothing to productive discussion about content, and whose meaningful activity is entirely limited to wikipolitics and the deployment of sanctions against other editors. It seems to me that this is a horrible perversion of the founding ideals and goals of this project, but whatever. MastCell Talk 20:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is that we now have accounts which contribute nothing to content, and essentially nothing to productive discussion about content, and whose meaningful activity is entirely limited to wikipolitics and the deployment of sanctions against other editors. Are you referring to EfV, or Lar? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Mastcell, you miss the doubleplusgoodfullness of giving priority to making WP a delightful forum for polite and civilised discourse, free from such old-fashioned constraints as article quality. More to the point, who are these baseless alligators? . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why he has such an acid temper. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave, keep in mind that article quality is determined by a review from one of your trusty Wikipedians (for GA) or a self-selected group of the same. It's not as if any outside opinions are relevant. So article quality is improved a lot if the potential reviewers all like you! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow looking at the contributions, it's astounding how many editors got this same warning as a cut and paste. Maybe a SPI should be initiated, any guesses?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a working hypothesis. But in the CC decision Arbcom made it clear that if there's any possibility of error in a sockpuppet accusation they will crush your sex organs with an industrial vise. So I'd rather not say at this time. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, an admin who erroneously acted on a sockpuppet accusation from an IP has undone the block, but as discussed elsewhere the temporarily blocked person apparently does not wish to pursue the issue. Clearly offputting biting of a newbie, hope it doesn't deter the newbie from future edits. . . dave souza, talk 16:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment at BN
Hey there. Whether meant as irony or not, I think your comment about SandyGeorgia at WP:BN is inappropriate and the inference is probably not at all welcome in a time of already high stress in areas of the project where Sandy is involved. I don't speak for anyone, of course, but I encourage you to strike that comment and find an alternate way to make your point. Thanks -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The comment could always be changed to read Lar, Juliancolton, Majorly, Casliber, Ceranthor etc. pick the one whose feelings will be least hurt by irony and use them instead. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I was honored to be so modestly proposed. Antandrus  (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone with no sense of humor be hurt by irony? Not that I have anybody in mind... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We have no sense of humour. Especially when it comes to an edit summary removing a comment. . . . dave souza, talk 21:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * However ... if I were to pick one iconic photograph that perfectly captures the zeitgeist of the 2010 elections in the U.S. ... Antandrus (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I've heard the phrase "revenge of the C students," but that looks to be too generous an evaluation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait for it... MastCell Talk 23:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That shocks even me, and I've gotten pretty jaded to political stupidity. Well -- who needs scientific method when you have a majority in a legislative body?  "Consensus" can trump ... oh wait ... what website am I on at the moment...?  Heading somewhere dangerous ... Antandrus  (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Barton has form on this. Wonder if they'll put Wegman on the stand again.... dave souza, talk 08:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be fine. As long as he releases all of his private email from the past 10 years. I mean, if you can't stand up to that kind of scrutiny, how can you claim any sort of integrity as a scientist? If I found out that Isaac Newton had said something personal and petty about John Flamsteed or Leibniz in his private correspondence, I would seriously question whether f did in fact equal ma. MastCell Talk 05:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tchaikovsky once wrote in his diary: "...and once more I played through the music of that scoundrel Brahms.  What a talentless bastard!"  The Nutcracker has stunk ever since, and everyone else will realize it too when the scales fall from their eyes. Antandrus  (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I just ran across this factoid: "Stephen Stills scuffled with a drunken spectator who was heckling the band during a benefit performance at a 1969 nonviolence festival." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As Walter Sobchak said, "I myself once dabbled in pacifism. Not in 'Nam, of course." MastCell Talk 02:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude. -Atmoz (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Great movie. "Without a hostage, there's no ransom. That's what ransom is. Those are the rules." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

STFU Donny. ATren (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're lucky User:Donny isn't an admin. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Mail?
BTW, do you read your email? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For security purposes I have my email account set to "destroy before reading." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is inefficient, not to mention dangerous! What do you do if someone breaks into your house and shouts "down with the revolution" before you can stop them? I've trained my brain to reject all non-conformists ideas directly, no matter which channel it enters. It's so liberating to know that you never have to change your opinion again! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I read my mail too. What kind of cabal is this if no-one tells me what is going on. Or are you in the other cabal? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the cabal, I can't help but think if a cabal member had pulled a stunt like this there would have been hell to pay instead of a mild "tut, tut." (Not that there is a cabal. As far as anyone not on the sekrit mailing list knows.) I'm not sure where to place enforcement of the CC sanctions along the spectrum between "capricious" and "partial." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Or maybe they just took it down because they know a lost cause when they see one and don't care to spend a moment longer than necessary on it. TGL will do nothing but get himself constantly rebanned for being useless and mean, so why waste the energy? Awickert (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the provocation was handled appropriately in this case. The issue I have is that if certain other individuals had done the same they would have been gleefully blocked. (BTW your remark about people getting banned for being "useless and mean" assumes facts not in evidence, to quote a mutual friend.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, I have the same worry about blocking, and that antic plus the WMC/Hipocrite voting-in-RfA block does make things look stupid. But I'm a strong believer in actions and positive feedbacks, so I'm not going to say something bad about someone taking what I think is the right action if someone else takes the wrong one, especially as the Wikipedia administration is a complex entity.
 * "Assumes facts not in evidence" I tried googling and may have succeeded, but I'm not sure if I found what you reference. In any case, I apply the same principle here that I do in physics: it is OK to assume what is obvious. Awickert (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Did You Care?
A new feature, boys and girls! Sometimes from The Free Encyclopedia Anyone Can Use To Promote Their Batshit Insane TheoriesTM, sometimes from the darkest corners of the intertubes, sometimes an elaborate lie. Updated daily or whenever I feel like it.


 * During the 2010 race for California governor, one of candidate Meg Whitman's spokespeople accidentally directed followers of her Twitter account to an online video of a South Korean bassist in a pink tutu, performing the song "Fuwa Fuwa Time."


 * "Accidentally"? MastCell Talk 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm an enforcer? Can you help me not be one?


As this is an unequivocal and unqualified agreement with ATren's statement, can I ask if you really do believe that I'm acting as a member of a self-appointed triumvirate of climate change arbitration enforcers as ATren contends?

If so, can you give me some pointers on how to not do this? The last thing I want to do is enforce that travesty of a decision.

ScienceApologist (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A certain article...
Hi Boris. I am curious as to your view that the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming article should be deleted. In particular, is your objection particular to the article's current form, or to any such article? I think (currently) that there should be such an article, but would appreciate discussing it with you. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean to do this?
Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:William M. Connolley may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. Jan 1 naD (talk " contrib) 14:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Man. You'd have to have a heart like a rock cast in the sea to call that "vandalism". MastCell Talk 19:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey. Howcome Whyfor I never got it the cool sheet music? I have suffered, darnit! Puppy is all unloved. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 19:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's for puppy, on fine proletariat worker's talk page from Antandrus (talk):




 * I am touched!!! Antandrus, thank you so very much. (hissing at SBHB: see, SOME peeps appreciate the puppy!) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a capitalist ploy. See, he actually gave it to Boris, while pretending to give it to you. But no worries, I care. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is glorious proletarian uprising! So much love from fellow comrades. Y'all can edit war on my page if you like. :-D KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/David Fuchs Polargeo (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Severe warning
Greetings, Short Brigade Harvester Boris. I have noticed that your user talk page is embarassingly long. Do you think that users of wikipedia who are using tiny mobile phones that can fit into a thimble can access this page efficiently? This is your final warning. The next step will be ArbCom, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Thimble denial. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mathsci, you didn't need to tell him like this. Next time just put a notice that his talk page is asking for a desperate archiving.  It always works for me when I do it and it sounds a lot more friendly. ;)  I hope you are well. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, Crohnie. You might have forgotten to switch on your irony radar this morning :) For related matters, completely trivial in comparison, please see . Mathsci (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All problems are editor's own. If editor properly follow proper protocols, no such problem will exist. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Boris speak like member of Kabal. Is good. Mathsci (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for your kind words and support in your voter guide, as well as for your other thoughtful observations. I'll also take your more critical comments, some of which have great merit, into account as I continue my service during the next two years. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Condolences
You have my sympathies in this difficult time. I always thought it would be a crossbow bolt from an enraged fellow band member that would take him from us; MS is much more prosaic. Anyhow... MastCell Talk 01:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We all knew it was coming sooner or later (though the MS was never officially confirmed). Even so it has hit me in a much more personal way than I ever expected; never thought that I'd actually tear up. Condolences to Jan. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, how jealous must your graduate students be
Outdone by 3rd graders. :) NW ( Talk ) 03:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a paper that really should not be cited as "et al" - they all deserve equal credit! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change
Hi, my point is important but perhaps so obvious as almost not worth saying. If you want to amend your original submission to say "BLP material in any article", then I'd be happy for my statement to be removed altogether.--Scott Mac 21:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not experienced in how these things are done; in particular whether statements should be modified after the original request, which is why I entered my note of concurrence. I think the arbs will be able to put 2 and 2 together and not come out with ei�, but if they go veering off in the weeds I'll restate the point. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, no prob. Merry Christmas.--Scott Mac 22:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack
Please consider refactoring this. As upset as you may be, calling another user a liar is not really helpful. Thanks.--Scott Mac 01:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think calling another user a liar is helpful if it is indisputably true (as it is in this case), since the resulting scrutiny may cause the person to mend their ways. Thus I stand by my evaluation and will accept whatever sanction the community feels is appropriate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't do that. I really don't want to block you. It obviously isn't "indisputably true".--Scott Mac 02:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that SBHB's statement wasn't indisputably true, and in fact it almost assuredly isn't true at all&mdash;partly because "liar" implies that CMLITC's statement was intentionally false at the time it was made, as opposed to the obvious possibility that there is a disagreement that's developed afterward as to how it would apply to a particular instance. That being said, a block here would only inflame matters further, so I hope the thread can be allowed to end here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be better if a slanderous accusation of deliberate dishonesty were retracted. However, the refusal to do so reflects more on the speaker rather than the spoken of. SBHB, I'm not going to push this to a crisis, but please do reconsider. The remark is utterly inappropriate.--Scott Mac 02:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I regret my comments, as well as bringing up the original topic of LHvU's gross incivility. By now I should have learned better than to attempt to hold an administrator or member(-elect) of the Arbitration Committee accountable for their words; given the realities here, that's a fool's errand. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comments regarding me, LessHeard vanU
I hope you read this rather than summarily deleting it, but I recognise it is your choice;

I would rather have emailed you, but you do not have this function enabled - so I shall have to comment here. You seem to have taken considerable exception to my comment regarding WMC and a list he maintains which (since I now know what is being referred to) contains links relating to me. I am at a loss to understand what particular aspect has so drawn your ire. Is it because I expressed my indifference to the possibility that I was on such a list, that I expressed myself in a vulgar manner, that I described that aspect of WMC's on-WP personae in a particular manner, or what I meant by "non scientific"? To deal with the last first, I was not intending to mean that WMC's viewpoint on CC/AGW are non scientific but rather I was referring to his viewpoints outside of the scientific subject of CC/AGW - although I am sure that your ability to parse English means that this is not the matter which concerns you. Neither do I believe that my declared indifference to the likelihood of my being on such a list to be reason for your repeated referrals to that comment of mine. It is either the use of a vulgarity in my speech or the use of a diminutive of WMC's first name coupled with an invented surname, or possibly both. It is quite clear that the word "fuck" was not directed at WMC or any other editor, but pertained to my estimated worth or value of the fact that I might be on a list maintained by WMC. I may have just as easily said "whit" or "shit" or other common expression of little or zero value, but the terminology I use in real life happens to be the f-bomb - and I used it here. Although indelicate, it is not an uncommon word or indeed phrase to be found on the admin noticeboards. If it is a matter of using such a term then I am simply surprised that you should be so sensitive, and make such complaint about it. This then leads to the last issue, where I used an "over familiar diminutive" of the name William, and appended to it another word which denotes a state of mind often associated with children; "Billy Tantrum". Did I use these words in ignorance of the fact they may have been found irritating or disrespectful? No, I did not. I used them to demonstrate my lack of concern upon the matter of who might of written what about me. It may not have been the wisest choice, in a continuing sequence of variable choices by me on this project, that I have made, but it is hardly an epithet by which my conduct in this one instance should be exampled as how one editor is treated differently from another. I have not referred to WMC by use of a vulgarity, as he has with others, his actions in demeaning phrases, as WMC has of other editors actions, or accused WMC of operating to an agenda by my comments, which WMC is in the habit of doing. I simply referred to WMC in a manner which does not confer respect, as has had WMC with me and many others, which may be considered as not being in the best interests of the project. I really hope that you will read this section, if nothing else. This brings me to your own strident efforts to have an accounting on a perceived difference between how one editor is treated and another, in regards to me. I may indeed have been less than courteous with regard to an editor who has a record of personal attacks and slights against those he disagrees with, upon reading that he maintains a list of those he has disputed with and recognising the likelihood I was on it. My bad, and not excusable. However, how excusable is you referring to me as a jerk in some conversation on another editors talkpage? I was so uninvolved in whatever matter it was that was being referred to, that it was only by some third party notifying me by email that I became aware of it. I know that I never commented upon the issue before now, outside of my response to the sender, and I am fairly sure that it has not been brought up subsequently with you. Perhaps you had forgotten it yourself? It certainly has played no part in your recent efforts to have editors treated in equal measure for indelicate language. Perhaps now it should, you having been reminded? How equal are you contemplating, may I ask? Habitual derisive commentary and name calling, an example of the general use of a vulgarity along with a condescending diminutive, or referring to another editor specifically (and by extension a smaller or larger percentage of the sysop enabled editors on en-WP) with an extremely insulting vulgarity? Perhaps you should advocate equal consideration upon your own indiscretion in your future comments in these matters, or perhaps simply recognise that momentary aberrations might not be viewed in the same manner as habitual inappropriate commentary and conduct in regard to other contributors? Either we must all be held accountable, you included, for every indiscretion or we weigh frequency of the occurence of such instances and act accordingly. I am content to accept the decisions of those reviewing these issues, and I hope that you are too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you distill this tortuous rambling into a coherent point? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you so sore at me saying "fuck" and referring to WMC as "Billy Tantrum" when you think it fine to call me a jerk? (I have just read the section above. I am prepared to redact this section if it means a quicker resolution of this matter. I would prefer you would redact your further reference to my indiscretion, but my offer is unilateral.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. The good old tu quoque defense. Not very original I'm afraid. Tell me, are you still blocking climate scientists out of the blue on spurious grounds? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hypocrisy... Yup, that was the phrase I was looking for. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't have to look far. I assume there's a mirror in your bathroom. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah - haven't had a good laugh in a while :-) Shot info (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "He tried to determine if there was meaning in the fact that cloud shadows from moonlight could move across the mountains and yet nothing on the mountain would move or even be affected. He knew that all of them were shadows:  the chanters, the dead, the living.  All shadows, moving across this landscape of mountains and valleys, changing the pattern of things as they moved but leaving nothing changed when they left.  Only the shadows themselves could change."  Matterhorn: A Novel of the Vietnam War. Cla68 (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And let's not forget�let's not forget�that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for domestic, inside the city: that ain't legal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Privet, Tovarisch
Interesting nicks and users on wikipedia are becoming more common. How cultured! --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (more detail: List of ships (The Culture) )
 * Good to find kulturny comrade. The name is actually from here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's all good. Now I've heard of a new radio program, and I discovered there's a new culture book out. Wikipedia For The Win. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By odd coincidence, I just picked up, at random, a Culture novel from the library yesterday. Matter, so far, is confusing beyond anything. Should I read the other novels first? NW ( Talk ) 17:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a good first choice. Start with Consider Phlebas William M. Connolley (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Either that or Player of Games. Incidentally, if you read all the books, then go back and read them all again, you may discover all kinds of interesting SC shenanigans hidden in plain sight. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I second The Player of Games. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Decadent bourgeois fantasies. According to decree of 1932 should reading socialist realism. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some people think that "decadent anarcho-socialist fantasies" fits the bill better. (for some values of round peg and square hole) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it time yet?
Hi, you've taken a long, long break from being an administrator. I understand why you needed the time but it's been a while so don't you think it's time to ask for your tools back? With what is going on lately, I think an administrator like you is badly needed. Please request the tools to be returned to you. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way so please. :)

Oh by the way, can you explain [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/Things_people_say&diff=404839116&oldid=404836440 what this means? "Perhaps another disengagement would be prudent."] Is he asking for an interaction ban of some sort? Sorry if I'm being dense here but I don't talk to WMC that often and I never edit pages he edits so it doesn't make sense to me unless this has to do with what I had so say at the CC case. Thanks for the help, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  15:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar asked for someone to talk to William in private. I have done so, just because I thought various people are using his innocuous and largely irrelevant subpage as a political football, to relive the close of WP:ARBCC. I did not really talk about the subpage: it was just a personal message appropriate for the time of year. I don't know William at all, but we come from the same background. For a long while Lar has exercised great self-control, but eventually that seems to have lapsed and he lashed out at random on Crohnie. I don't think Crohnie should take it personally. Things are a bit dysfunctional on wikipedia at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mathsci, you say this so clearly and well. It does seem like things are totally out of control.  I'm finding discussions at AN/i, AN and then the MFD, and of course various talk pages.  I was tempted to talk to WMC about things but decided against it.  He's seems to be under attack in so many different direction that I didn't want him to think I was adding to his stress.  It's like there is a group doing whatever they can to make it so bad here that WMC either gives up or gets banned.  I find this to be shameful.  He's been an editor for a long time and has accomplished a hell of a lot more than I could ever dream of.  You would think that editors like him would be wanted not thrown away.  Well I'm babbling now but as you can tell, I'm very frustrated by all of this.  I wish I could help but it seems that option has been taken away with the comment by Lar.  Maybe Lar is angry with me for what I said at the PD talk page at the end of the case.  I was then and believe I still am now an uninvolved editor though now I would have to put limitations on what I say since I feel that WMC has been wronged.  Anyways, thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not angry with you. I just think you are exceedingly confused and your comments often don't help matters in the slightest. Hence I think if you're doing more harm than good, you ought to step away. ... a lot of people ought to. You're not as bad as jps who is totally out of control lately but still... As a note, that input wasn't a "lash out at random"... Mathsci is a bit confused too. If you want to continue this discussion I recommend my talk page, where comments don't get censored or removed if they're inconvenient. ++Lar: t/c 23:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course all will become clear if you accept Assumption 1: Lar is always right, and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong and hence unhelpful. The validity of Assumption 1 is obvious if you are Lar, but less so if you are somebody else. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As for SBHB taking up the admin bit again? I don't think that's a good idea at all. Perhaps after SBHB goes a few months without snarking? ++Lar: t/c 23:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Lar should give up the bit until he goes a few months without snarking, neh? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys are so predictable. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd missed WP:ARBCC: do all arb cases get a shortcut, or only particularly exciting ones? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. X! made the shortcut way back in July. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Friviolous WP:AN complaints
I guess you taught me not to linger in the bathroom while I'm reading WP:AN. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this is what the young folks call "too much information"... Anyway, happy 2011! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

3rr warning
Could you please substantiate that I've made even a single revert to that essay? If not, I expect you to withdraw that accusation. It doesn't matter that your warning was to SlimVirgin on her talk page, you accused me of doing the same thing. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Should have been Collect. Got my C's mixed up, sorry. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way...
Have you heard the White Stripes' cover of "Ashtray Heart"? I think they did a few other Captain Beefheart covers as well. MastCell Talk 00:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I like it though Meg White is certainly no John French. Yeah, they did a small set of Beefheart covers (dunno what it's called, would have been an EP back in the old days). Their version of China Pig was pretty cool. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Read the post, sad-twinged. Take your mother home to Mabel! Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question opened
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 15:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

RHETI
Re : ha, good call William M. Connolley (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If the admins say it's Pseudoscience then it should be properly categorized as such, so that editors do not inadvertently run afoul of any restrictions on such topic areas. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems entirely fair to me. Of course, if there is any subsequent dispute as to whether the category applies, that would amount to admins settling a content dispute by use of their tools, which would obviously be a Bad Thing William M. Connolley (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, I think this falls afoul of WP:ARBPS, specifically principles 15-17. Presumably Sandstein, Courcelles, Elonka and T. Canens must be aware of the case. Does that mean they should all be blocked without further warning? Guettarda (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * SBHB, can you tell me which admin abused their tool? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All the male ones, I expect William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Use != abuse, although, of course, abuse requires use (or does it?) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Uses for purposes other then intended is possibly misuse, and with continuation it is abuse. (Sometimes it's just innovation too.) Where there any sources to support the content issues within which the admin was involved? Did the admin have a history in the article? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Email
Hey Boris. I sent you a couple of emails. I'm guessing that you're having the standard academic's issue with email overwhelmingness, so I thought I'd poke you here... but if it is intentional ignoring, just don't reply here either and I'll get the message : ). Awickert (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not at all, it's on my colossal "to do" list. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's what I guessed and I completely understand; my semi-disappearance from WP these past months correlates strongly with bringing my to-do list back under control. Awickert (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboards
My goodness, but you've gotten puckish in your old age. :P MastCell Talk 23:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Shut the puck up, MastCell. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I seem to be out of my element. MastCell Talk 06:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

What's a short brigade?
And why do you harvest them? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been meaning to ask that myself. Do tell. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a reference to a (hilarious) bit from Firesign Theatre Dear Friends radio series, 11 October 1970. Antandrus  (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The skit is here. This is timely because TFT has collected all the old radio shows and remastered them, to be released next month. A bargain at $45. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I went to see them perform live in Hollywood once. Wonderful -- they were a blast.  I want to say they did that skit, because it was so familiar, but I'm not sure -- it was a while ago. Antandrus  (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I listened to the MP3 of the Firesign sketch, and the words sound to me like 'shock brigade' rather than 'short brigade.' This would fit with Boris being an especially productive worker. See the figure caption in the Agitprop article: "Hurry to enter shock brigades of an exemplary labor!" EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. A request  for username change may be necessary.  I just received my copy of the remastered radio shows a few days and will take a close listen. Unfortunately my hearing is partly trashed from standing too close to the drummer in my younger days.  What do other people hear it as? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure?
Are you sure you want to proceed here, it may be an unnecessary disruption? You can withdraw any time to avoid this issue, I remain open to talk peacefully. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * All I ever wanted was for you to calm down and work constructively. I held off on the AE for a while, but you convinced me there was no other choice by doing [this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZuluPapa5&action=historysubmit&diff=411282361&oldid=411257490] and this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok ... why escalate? How about you agree to an interaction ban, where you don't delete my contributions and you don't participate in administrative issues where I am the subject. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You've got it backwards, again.... YOU are the one who's doing something wrong, so you don't get to call the shots:


 * You don't own your contributions. Anyone can delete or alter them as necessary.
 * SBHB (and anyone else) has a right to contact you or approach you as a normal part of business here, and you don't have a right to tell them not to do so when they are acting civilly. That would be uncollaborative, and uncollaborative people don't belong here.
 * Both of your comments limit SBHB and give yourself total freedom to do as you've been doing.... treating everyone here as an enemy. This isn't a battleground.
 * Brangifer (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Brangifer, I find your comment disruptive to my attempts for collaborative and peaceful resolution. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Zulu, I mean this respectfully, I think it might be best if you are in western Europe, that you take a break from Wikipedia and get involved in the day's activities, or if you're in the western hemisphere, that you hit the hay. This stuff really isn't very important. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ta
Thanks old fruit William M. Connolley (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I used to believe in evolution, too! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmf, you should be a sceptic like me. Ah don't believe in nuthin', old bean. . . dave souza, talk 18:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

heelarious
''Once again you're operating from the naive perspective that anyone cares about "damaging to the encyclopedia" as opposed to maintaining a vibrant and exciting social club. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)''  thanks for the chuckles, i might have to add that to my top 5 comments list, if/when i ever make one. - PrBeacon (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We aim to please. Apologies to MastCell, who is one of the best of the best around here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

For he's a jolly good Boris
On behalf of Wikipedia editors everywhere, we salute the tireless efforts of Boris! We present you with this invisible, microscopic barn-cake:. Eat it with pride. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am trying to lose weight, so microscopic is just the right size! Yum! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Jet stream
Why on Earth would you revert a good edit like that? I really don't understand. Thanks for initially trying to fix the lead though. I don't know how, or when, that got in there. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No big deal, it's just that I'm trying to swear off editing content here because I'm increasingly convinced that it isn't a good use of my time. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure myself, Boris. Very few people visit the articles I edit. Any sort of editing where people are present brings forth an argument. However, I do enjoy learning on Wikipedia and its a shame when articles become neglected, inaccurate, or biased. I want people to be able to learn from an article, really learn about a subject, and be able to form their own opinion about it; if they need form an opinion at all. Anyway, yes, I think its usually a waste of time. But its certainly addictive. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Join Wikipedia!
Glad you enjoyed it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Frighteningly accurate, it is. Antandrus (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Its kinda scary how true that is.... --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   04:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)