User talk:Chris Chittleborough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is busy in real life and probably will not respond swiftly to queries.


Please reply to comments I make on the same page. I always watch pages where I leave comments for at least a week. Replying there will make it easier for other users (and me — and perhaps even you) to follow our conversation. Thanks.

Please add new items at the bottom of this page. (Click here to do that.)

Archive
Archives

Archive 1 9-Sep-2005 to 15-Jun-2007

Contents


[edit] Space Gamer

Hi Chris!!

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, any thoughts and help would be greatly appreciated!

Take care,

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

[edit] Deceptive message from User:William M. Connolley

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

[edit] Blocked for alleged incivility

Well, you had your warning William M. Connolley 18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true; see below. CWC
First Unblock-Request Statement

It is an abuse of admin powers to block someone you are in conflict with, as WMC has done.

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

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

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

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

I must apologise - the permanent block was an error. I've reset it to 3h as of now, which roughly fits the 8h I originally intended. As for the warning: you're removed it William M. Connolley 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Another lie! There was no warning. Warnings require some sort of conditionality. Even "People who are incivil get blocked" has implicit conditionality. "Please review X" has no conditionality. It is a request, not a warning.
Also, WMC's unblock log message is not consistent with the hard-to-believe claim that the permanent block was an error, unless he means it was a tactical error.
Nevertheless, I accept WMC's apology.
However, I continue to request an unblock, so that my block log will have at least some indication that WMC's blocks are contrary to multiple Wikipedia rules, especially WP:DICK. CWC 23:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

WMC has reduced the duration of his illegitimate block, but that does not make it legitimate. The original block was way out-of-line regardless of duration, and I would like my block log to have some indication that WMC's blocks are not an accurate assessment of my standing as a Wikipedia editor.

Response from Chaser

Your block has expired, so my understanding is you were just looking for a log entry. While you're correct that WMC shouldn't have blocked an editor he was in a dispute with, my opinion is that the behavior that led to the block warranted one (the 8-hour one, of course, not the indef). The only incivility I can see before the warning was Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit, which is listed at WP:CIVIL#Examples as profanity directed against another user, though I acknowledge the Aussie vernacular ties might be mitigating (I'm not familiar with Australian vernacular). Simply citing policy as WMC did in the warning is generally acknowledged as not the most effective way to deliver a civility warning, but the response to his warning ("remove pathetic piece of deceptive trolling") was totally inappropriate. It wasn't trolling; and I think that you knew it wasn't trolling when you removed it. I recognize that it's difficult to be hunky-dory with someone who warns you about something during a content dispute, but your reaction was clearly incivil and had the potential to inflame a bad situation. So block endorsed.— Chaser - T 04:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Woops. Arrgh.

I see that user:Chaser left the following message on User talk:William M. Connolley:

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

WMC replied:

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

In reality, the whole incident originated in a content dispute about a statement sourced to Natuurwetenschap & Techniek in Hockey stick controversy. (See Talk:Hockey stick controversy#William.2C you are doing it again.) Sigh. CWC 09:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bork

[This relates to Robert Bork (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). See especially Talk:Robert Bork#June 7 Libby brief.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Editing other people's comments

Sorry, it was a mistake (I'm not sure what happened).

To err is human. When computers are involved, little mistakes are often greatly amplified. No problem. One little mouse click in the wrong place can make a real mess, because we programmers often don't think carefully enough about CHI issues. CWC 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amir Taheri

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

Nyisnotbad, you are quite free to propose cited, balanced criticisms at Talk:Amir Taheri, and always have been. But please read up on core Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP, WP:NOR (especially the "undue weight" rule), and WP:RS first. CWC 17:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree there should be compromise language. Language which at least acknowledges that there are people who claim Taheri is a hack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.26.195 (talk • contribs)
Please suggest a compromise. I recommend you and your allies start a discussion on Talk:Amir Taheri. (Clicking here will add a new section to that talk page.) CWC 06:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From someone who is a little obsessive about Michelle Malkin

God damn you suck ass. Can you have your head any further up Malkins ass?

Your POV is all over that article.

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

This remarkable contribution to elevated discourse comes from user 140.90.233.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who almost certainly edits Wikipedia under a registered username. Isn't that special? CWC 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note to self

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

[edit] Anthony Peratt

Thanks for your help

I appreciate the help you've given me on Anthony Peratt. I don't quite know what the rationale behind what some of the others are saying, but I'm glad you brought up the idea of deleting the article. --Mainstream astronomy 20:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The article may meet WP:PROF though, if someone knowledgeable in the field finds evidence of notability. CWC 10:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
De-prodded

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

Good move. I should have done that. CWC 10:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Eddy Quicksall

I was reading the SCTP page. I notice the following statement:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Alger Hiss

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

[edit] Zero Critical

Please reconsider your decison to link to the Underdogs entry for this game as the The Underdosg entry contains a possible copyvio. ShakespeareFan00 12:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So it does. I added the HotU link for the description, but we can live without it. Thanks for deleting that link. Cheers, CWC 01:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that a recent debate about the deletion of the {{hotu}} template resulted in it being kept, and therefore it can be used. Use with discretion, of course, and particularly for those games that are freeware, or where the HOTU page has moer information than the Wikipedia page. >Radiant< 09:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

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

[edit] another thanks

Chris,

Thanks for uploading that Weekly Standard image. How did you do it? All I could find on the Web site were pdf files. I just wish that the editor who removed the previous magazine cover would have alerted people on the talk page. That way we could have done the little work that needed doing on the image page and kept it without the extra bother (apparently fair-use images need someone to type in something like "Hey, this is in fact a fair-use image that is being used to illustrate an article on this particular subject" -- despite the fact that the template already says so). Anyway, thanks, and I'd love to know how you got the image. Noroton 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.
Most PDF readers can extract images from PDF files. I know I've used Acrobat Reader for this in the past, but I can't remember the details. These days I use Foxit Reader, which can 'copy' an image to the system clipboard, from where you can paste it into an image utility (I use IrfanView) and save it as a .jpg file.
About fair-use images: yeah, it is a pain typing in those rationales, but keeping the copyright lawyers away is important. (Talking about copyright, I suggest you get that PDF deleted.) Cheers, CWC 08:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VDH

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

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

[edit] Good Catch

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

[edit] Semi-protection

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

That's fine. Thanks. CWC 04:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brainwashing 101

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

[edit] sour grapes of Murdoch press

sources that are relied upon need to be independent of what they are reporting on, Bolt and the Australian's editor are obviously not neutral sources of criticism on this program's coverage of the Murdoch press as opposed to others media organisations. Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTownsvillian (talk • contribs) 10:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] In re your comment

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

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture

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

[edit] Melbourne Meetup

Wikimedia Melbourne Meetup

Next: In planning?
Previous: Sunday 20th April, 3pm
This box: view • talk • edit

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

[edit] Semi-protected again

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

[edit] WikiProject Australia newsletter

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

[edit] Colebatch

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

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

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

Hesperian 04:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] WikiProject Australia newsletter

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

[edit] Benador Associates

I noticed that you twice placed a request for citation on the Benador Associates page,[1] [2], but it was silently removed by User:Kitrus [3]. I've removed the sentence altogether; do you think any other action should be taken at this point? Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(Refreshes memory ... Oh, that.) No, I see no need for further action, now that you've removed that sentence. Thanks for the good edit. Cheers, CWC 04:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was reverted, and User:Nagle added a source that you had already strongly objected to on the Talk: page. I've tried to bring the article in line with policy; perhaps you'd like to comment on the Talk: page: Talk:Benador Associates. Jayjg (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

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

Thanks, Acalamari. I generally do a few vandalism cleanup edits per week, so rollback won't make a big difference for me, but it will help. Cheers, CWC 14:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adelaide Wikimeetup 3

Riverside Precinct Adelaide Meetup
Next: 20 Apr 2008
Last: 16 Feb 2008
This box: view • talk • edit

Hi Chris - we're planning a third meetup in Adelaide sometime in the coming weeks, and would love to have you there. If you can, please help decide a location, a date and a time here. Thanks! ~ Riana ⁂ 11:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11

Hi,

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

[edit] Adelaide Wikimeetup 3

Riverside Precinct Adelaide Meetup
Next: 20 Apr 2008
Last: 16 Feb 2008
This box: view • talk • edit

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

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

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

[edit] Warning

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

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

Darn. I was trying to be civil. Sorry.

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

As most observers will have guessed by now, I can't stand the common but morally and intellectually bankrupt trick of slurring anyone to the left of Ted Kennedy as "far right". Why? Because it makes it much harder to expose the genuine "far right" when people are misled into believing that ordinary GOP politicians are effectively indistinguishable from someone David Duke, let alone Tom Metzger. The successful racists are good at pointing to these sort of lies and using them as propaganda tools. I want Wikipedia to expose the racists, not hand them ammunition![4] CWC 15:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt at clarity

  1. Cleary the tag "far right" applies to people people like this.
  2. Using the same label for mainstream conservatives is a sneaky way of saying that there is no difference between (say) Ezra Levant and the genuine Racist Right.
  3. But there are enormous differences between the Racist Right and mainstream conservatives. In fact those differences are far, far greater that the differences between mainstream conservatives and people like Markos Moulitsas.
  4. Therefore, smearing mainstream conservatives as "far right" is contentious.
  5. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately and without waiting for further discussion. That's Wikipedia policy and that's what I did.
  6. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. Restores the material? That's what Wikidemo did, and he did not provide any evidence.
  7. I explained all this, rather less verbosely, in my edit comments and messages to Wikidemo.

I'm astonished that any reasonable adult has any trouble understanding the reasoning here. Clearly the problem is not lack of intellectual ability — so what is it? This worries me. CWC 16:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Ted Frank talk page

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

Good move. I should have thought of that. Thanks, CWC 12:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Lemire

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

One of Wikipedia's core policies forbids doing what Frank just did: writing defamatory statements about someone without any sourcing. This applies to every page on the project, including this one. See here for my further response.
I strongly believe that the way to overcome the racists is to behave better than they do, not lower ourselves to the same dishonest tactics that so many of them use. (There are some racists who behave honestly — very few, but they do exist. It's a weird, weird world we live in.) Lying about them just gives them ammunition to gather more followers.
Short version: I'm not defending Lemire, I'm defending Wikipedia.
Somewhat relevant aside: most white supremacists explicitly reject Naziism because
  1. the Nazis were such a corrupt bunch of losers
    and/or
  2. the sort of people they'd prefer to recruit find Nazis repulsive
In other words, going neo-Nazi is a bad business decision.
Cheers, CWC 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ASCII FAR

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

[edit] Arbcom

I find it a little odd that you stated there was no edit conflict, yet [5] you are stating here that you wanted his block removed from your block log after it was overturned that WMC had blocked you while in a dispute. Can you please explain better if the block was legit at the time, and if so why you wanted your block log to represent something contrary, of it it was not legit? --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I see what you were stating I believe. --I Write Stuff (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support Blp

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