User talk:ChrisO~enwiki

Old discussions now at /Archive 1 / /Archive 2 / /Archive 3 / /Archive 4 / /Archive 5 / /Archive 6 / /Archive 7 / /Archive 8 / /Archive 9 / /Archive 10 / /Archive 11 / /Archive 12 / /Archive 13 / /Archive 14 / /Archive 15 / /Archive 16 / /Archive 17 / /Archive 18 / /Archive 19 / /Archive 20 / /Archive 21 / /Archive 22 / /Archive 23 / /Archive 24 / /Archive 25 / /Archive 26 / /Archive 27

Please add new comments below.

Railway Station

Can you unprotect the Railway station page? Thanks Showjumpersam (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Taliban page: Requested Edit

I have requested an edit for the Taliban page, made with the edit protected template on the Talk page. Since you were the last one to assert it's protected status, I would like to see this edit made for NPOV reasons, as stated. However, parts of the article have a tone of bias, like the discussion on the Talk page suggests. Why has this patchy bias never been investigated, considering the subject is of high topical interest? So there will probably be needed a few more edits in addition to the one requested. DavidHuo (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Inner German border FAC

I crossed it several times when I went on two solo visits to the GDR (1977 and 78), for musical reasons. It was pretty weird—almost freaky.

Have you notified Raul yet that you'll be seeking main-page placement on 9 November? If you need support in securing the date, please let me know. Tony (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on FAC issues. Will print current FAC issues and Article. Compare, and comment within about 12 hours or so. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

RfA question

LOL - hearing the clank of mops and buckets all over wiki-verse!

I think your Q should have been Q18 btw. Leaky Caldron 21:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Article

		The Original Barnstar
		For your article on Development of the inner German border. Great job keep up the good work!- BennyK95 - Talk 23:12, October 22 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome! Keep up the good work! - BennyK95 - Talk 22:37, October 23 2009 (UTC)

Despite the communists being bad I still think the border defences are neat don't you? Have you ever seen Night Crossing? I like your articles. - BennyK95 - Talk 01:39, October 24 2009 (UTC)

Ben Bernanke

Sorry, i miss read the situation, Thanks, kiwiteen123 (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, just be aware that we get a lot of anti-semitic nonsense on that article. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Inner German Border

Looks very good. Make sure Fifelfoo's issues are dealt with. Several books missing from the reference section, Ladd 2, McAdams, a couple of others. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Escape attempts and victims of the inner German border may reflect ideological bias--victims of the border....casualties of the border? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, possibly. Let me sleep on it overnight, I don't think we need to rush into a snap judgement on it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Cooperation between the Western Allies and the Soviets ultimately broke down due to disagreements over Germany's political and economic future. because of? or Cooperation failed because of? I think you're using it adverbially, so it needs to be because of.... (Fowler, Usage). Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right - I changed it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• East Germany's legitimacy was rejected from the outset by West Germany and the Western Allies Subject and object are reversed: SB The West German government and the Western Allies rejected the legitimacy of the East Germany from the outset. The government was neither freely nor fairly elected, and the state itself existed only as a Communist/Soviet fait accompli.There needs to be a statement in here about the name "inner border" as a consequence of the indivisibility of the German volk. Thus, it was a border dividing Germans from Germans. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• First paragraph Views of the Border you've changed verb tense. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tried making it all past tense, but I can't get it to read satisfactorily. I'll raise this at the FAC discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In the early days of the occupation, the Allies maintained controls.. In the early days..., the Allies controlled....?

Changed. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify again between Childs (no date) and Childs (2001). Is there a second Childs work? There's no book listed for no date childs. Are they the same book? Fifelfoo (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Childs (2001) is: Childs, David (2001). The fall of the GDR. London: Pearson Education Ltd. ISBN 0582315689.

The other Childs is: Childs, David (1989). "The SED faces the challenges of Ostpolitik and Glasnost". East Germany in comparative perspective. London: Routledge. p. 5. ISBN 9780415004961. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Childs 1989 is an edited collection, and cites like "Childs, p. 140" would be referring to P. Bryson "Enterprise and Association in Soviet Planning" Fifelfoo (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Childs 1989 is no longer cited in the parent article; I've removed it from the list of references. --JN466 23:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In recognition of your work

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		Please accept this barnstar for the skilled man-months you have poured into WP, specifically at Inner German Border. Brilliant job tackling this difficult topic with sensitivity, perfect adherence to NPOV, great style and lots of hard work. Lastly, well done staying calm and motivated in the face of calls for major rewrites during FAC. I look forward to the featured topic that will come from your contribution. Dhatfield (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Seconded. Chris, I incorporated your recent edit in an e.c. I'm not editing it further, for the moment. Tony (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC) PS Later, I'll fix the numerals that start sentences, which aren't allowed by MoS. I've fixed the final dots thing in the captions (no dot if the caption is just a nominal group. Tony (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thirded. ;) Chris, would you have a page number for the Koop reference? --JN466 15:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I forgot to note the page number... I'll fix this, but it'll take a few days, since the book isn't very easy to get hold of. Bear with me! -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A few days won't matter. On the other hand it occurs to me that the short paragraph where Koop is cited is one of the few to have two references. Is the Koop source needed? If the first source covers the content of the paragraph by itself, we could simply drop Koop, and you wouldn't have to go to any trouble. --JN466 01:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Fourthed. For what it's worth, I just wanted to add my kudos for an outstanding set of articles on the inner German Border. Some of the best that Wikipedia has to offer. Thanks for all you do. -Canglesea (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Did you receive my email a while ago? PS I quoted you here. Tony (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC

Hi ChrisO. Can you let me know on my talk when you and Awadewit have all the image issues worked out? Sandy has recused herself from this one, and if all objections are met I'd like to be able to close this before my next pass through FAC next Tuesday. You've done some amazing work on this article - congratulations. Karanacs (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Inner German Border photos

I have some photos of the Inner German Border from late 1990 and 1991 (all after the wall "fell", but while large chunks of it were still standing). I was able to check my Berlin photos and have some of the zone between the two walls, new gaps in the wall, fences, towers, plus post-Unification graffitti (on the former "East" side) and some pictures of places where the wall was (long dirt strips), foundations of a guard tower, etc. I also have some pictures from the Hessian-Thuringian border which was more intact that might be useful / interesting. I realize the article is already well illustrated, but thought I would offer (I would have to scan the images too as they are prints). Also have some pictures of crosses in Berlin to victims who died crossing / trying to cross. If you are intersted in these for the parent or subarticles, let me know and I will try to decribe them better and then scan the ones you want. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I also forgot to say that it is really an amazing article and I was happy to see it (and support its FAC just now). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at my Berlin photos before posting this, will have to dig through to find the Hessian-Thuringian ones (so this is from memory). They were near Witzenhausen or Bad Sooden-Allendorrf (I believe) and it was a road that used to cross the border. They had just knocked down the wall / fence and there was a rough road over the former border. I know there was a black/red/gold border post, perhaps with chunks out of it for souvenirs. There was a guard tower (BT-9 I believe) with painted graffitti on it. It is a hilly region and I am pretty sure I have some photos of the wall / fence/ road stretching off into the distance. I will look and see and let you know, hopefully in the next several hours.

If you do work on the Berlin Wall article and are interested in those photos, please let me know. I also wondered about an article or list on the border in popular culture - Wings of Desire and Arno Surminski's novel "Polninken" come to mind, but I am sure there are many more. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Photo listing

I double checked and the photos were actually taken at the border near Pferdsdorf-Spichra in the Kreis Krauthausen (there is a video about the village called "Leben am Todesstreifen" here). Anyway I took the pictures in Advent of 1990, almost certainly in early December. It was an overcast day, so the lighting is not great, but here are the 9 photos that might be useful for use on Wikipedia.

1. Metal mesh fence on the right side (3 panels high), some of the metal panels have been removed with the concrete posts visible through the hole. There is a small red spray paint blotch on it. In the background the fence zigzags across a hilly landscape with the two lane patrol road visible in the distance - the ground has a light dusting of snow or heavy frost. (vertical format)
2. Black/red/gold concrete border post with the corners chipped off by souvenir hunters. In the distant background the double fence is visible. (vertical format)
3. BT-9 tower with red and yellow paint grafitti on the top and bottom. Border fence is visible in the background. The lighting is poor as the sun is behind the tower so it is nearly in silhouette. (vertical format)
4. BT-9 tower at far left in the middle distance with the patrol road and fence running in front of it and continuing into the distance to the right. The autobahn bridge (to Eisenach) is visible on the horizon and the chipped border post is in the foreground at extreme right (slghtly out of focus). (horizontal format)
5. Road into the village, with houses of Pferdsdorf-Spichra visible in the disatnce (orange tile roofs and church tower). On the right is a BT-9 tower with graffiti and a wall attached to the right side. Various fence posts are visible, but no clear fence. (horizontal format)
6. View from atop the BT-9 tower with rear single fence to the left and double border fence to the right. Part of the tower railing is visible at bottom - not a great photo. (horizontal format)
7. View inside the upper storey of the guard tower. Windows are broken out with some glass shards in the frame still visible. There is a metal ladder at right and the walls and window frames are painted (vandalism). Mountain and fields visible out of focus through windows. (vertical format)
8. View along double track concrete roadway in the foreground and stretching into the distance. The single fence parallels the road at rightentering about mid-picture. A dirt farm road has been made across (perpendicular to) the road with a hole in the fence for this dirt road. (vertical format)
9. On top of the guard tower. In the foreground is the hole into the interior (in the flat roof) with a broken spotlight and metal railing behind. Through the hole the interior of the topwer is visible with broken windows and painted graffiti "ALL". The spotlight, railings and hole frame are also all painted. In the background the single fence is visible running left to right. (vertical format)

1, 2, 4, 8, and 9 are probably the best. 3 might work with some tweaking after scanning. I can scan all 9 if you want, just tell me what you want. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's take a look at 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded them all but 6 - here they are. 1, 2, 3 and 8 were scanned at 1200 dpi, the rest at 600 dpi. I adjusted the levels on 3 and spelled Pferdsdorf incorrectly in the name on 1. Hope at least one of them is useful, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9

No surprise to see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 9, 2009, but congratulations again. Just curious, were any of these images suitable for use in the main article or itssubarticles? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've used number 8 (reprocessed via Photoshop, since there were some colour and contrast issues) in the article, and I will probably end up using at least a couple of the others in the sub-articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help a tiny bit and thanks for cleaning it up. The more I look at them, the more I like 9, and wish I had gotten better angles on a few others. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Content Creativity Barnstar with added WikiProject Germany barnstar
		With congratulations on the promotion of Inner German border to FA status! A superbly researched, superbly written, superbly illustrated article that has added so much outstanding material about a key part of European history to Wikipedia that I fully expect it to spawn several additional FAs and a featured topic. You have done most of the work already. Kudos! --JN466 19:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I second Jayen's comments above. That article is outstanding. Cla68 (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, even I was considering to give you a "German Barnstar of National Merit" – I normally hate those, but having the Inner-German border on the front page on this day is really something special. Great job! And, dang, the memory of those days really does still send shivers down my spine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Aw, I'm too young and from the wrong continent to have such a reaction. But still, I'm really enjoying reading this highly informative article. Good work. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It was fun writing and researching it, so it's a good result all round. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Rex theatre.jpg

File:Rex theatre.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Rex theatre.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Rex theatre.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I cleaned up a few citation consistency (in dates) issues at Inner German border, but wanted you to be aware of this, for future reference. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- ChrisO (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris, could I draw your attention to the comment by User:Blunt, bottom of the Signpost article? I think s/he is from WP.de article on the Berlin Wall. Tony (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Jamal al durrah.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Jamal al durrah.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mauerspechte

Hi Chris,

I stumbled about your remarkable article on the inner german border. In my opinion there still is missing one article on the english wikipedia and maybe you are interested to write this too: Mauerspechte (de:Mauerspechte, a neologism made of the words for wall and woodpecker). It is about the people who took the demolition of the wall into their own hands.

--62.226.170.100 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Inner German border

Thanks for the invite to look at the hook. I wasn't on WP today, and it seems to be all done and dusted now. The last version of the hook that was up looked good though.

I am glad it all got done in time. Best, --JN466 20:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The very best of congratulations on this day for all your work. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your remarks of 20/10/2009

In connection with the al-Durrahs, it is not clear that any one had any weapons that could cause a "blast" or "shrapnel" in the area. It is odd that the older Arab was not injured by the blast and shrapnel. The parts of the boy not visible are mostly against the wall, making it impossible to wound him from that side. The resolution and distance are visible to all. The "plentiful photographic evidence" is not produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.36.64 (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Query

With all due respect, I can't recall to have "consistently pushed for a title which would overtly favour a far-right minority POV".[1] Would you mind clarifying where my comments led you to that conclusion? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good luck

Just to make sure you're ready: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-09/Dispatches (a dispatch about surviving main page day). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Not the first time I've been through main page day, but I'm sure I'll survive. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award

As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

IGB

Hey dude, would you be able to provide another citation for this paragraph?

The inner German border was never entirely sealed in the fashion of the border between the two Koreas and could be crossed in either direction throughout the Cold War. The post-war agreements on the governance of Berlin specified that the Western Allies were to have access to the city via defined air, road, rail and river corridors. This was mostly respected by the Soviets and East Germans, albeit with periodic interruptions and harassment of travellers. Even during the Berlin Blockade of 1948, supplies could be brought in by air – the famous Berlin Airlift – and Allied military convoys could pass through East Germany en route to Berlin.

Many thanks, —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and let's not forget ...

... that you are indeed a Fucking Genius. [2] "Die Siedlungsnamen des Innviertels als lauthistorische Quellen", indeed! We should all study that important work more often. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a good Fucking source, isn't it? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald and evidentiary value of blogs

Hello, ChrisO. In deleting my edit of the Glenn Greenwald page where I added info about sockpuppetry allegations, you remarked "blogs are not reliable sources for such accusations." The blog posts to which I linked contained well-documented and detailed technical and textual analyses that more than met the standard of "preponderance of the evidence." What led you to the conclusion that those posts are unreliable? Respectfully, The Puddle Pirate 00:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puddlepirate (talk • contribs)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which tells you what sources you can use. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Heinz-Josef Große

On November 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Heinz-Josef Große, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Inner German Border

Hey there! Was looking through the Inner German Border FA (which, by the way, is an amazing article) and saw that an IP has added a lot of new stuff, included a partially cited section on the border at the river Elbe. I think you might want to take a look at it, since the citation is to a primary source and not quite properly formatted. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, will do. Thanks for the heads-up! -- ChrisO (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

CO2 Emisions

There are no figures for Gibraltar CO2 emissions, the study simply recorded imports of oil which in the case of Gibraltar are re-exported as bunkers for ships. I tried to include the explanation in the Spanish wikipedia but Ecemaml removed it - take a look at the history there. --Gibnews (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Ctesiphon

Ignoring the silliness, it needs work. I don't have time but would you like a copy of Notes on Julian's Persian Expedition (363) Author(s): R. T. Ridley Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 22, No. 2 (2nd Qtr., 1973), pp. 317-330? The article seems too simple to me. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the article looks most unsatisfactory in its current state. I'd be happy to have a look at the notes you mention - any chance of sending over a scanned copy? (You have my e-mail address, I think.) -- ChrisO (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Trebuchet.jpg

Hi, can you confirm that you've released the aboce image under a creative commons license? If you have, could you leave a noe on the image's description page? Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, done. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil Jones

Chris, yes there is such an article, I clicked on it and it worked correctly. Flegelpuss (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Northern Heights

Please be kind enough to say (here) if you are prepared to give permission to use your Northern Heights drawing in the following graphic, which may be used on a blog and as an advert in a local paper. http://i46.tinypic.com/rkqarn.jpg

There is no feasible room to add a credit, as you can see.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.151.102 (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

{{user NPOV}}

Hey does that {{user NPOV}} on your user page apply to global warming issues? Just wondering... Ling.Nut (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, but I have a low tolerance threshold for the kind of shameless idiocity that is going on in that article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It will sort itself out in time. Meanwhile, quite frankly , you look very very much like a POV warrior. Just saying. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The conduct of a number of editors on that article is some of the most appalling I've seen in a long time on Wikipedia. I don't think there's a single content or behavioural policy that hasn't been broken. The article is clearly being targeted by whackjobs and cranks. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So? That makes it different from ID? Note that using the term "wackjob" and "crank" requires assuming a stance about the content of the article... unless of course you are saying that pro-global warming folks can be wackjobs and cranks too. ;-) It will all sort itself out. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ling.Nut--
I must — however gently — take exception with your characterization of ChrisO as "[looking] very very much like a POV warrior." I consider his judgment to be impeccable.
--NBahn (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's OK. I'm chatting amicably. I was kinda involved in this issue in the beginning, but have since talked myself out of it.... And you could be right, and I could be wrong about Chris. But... a POV warrior does not look like a POV warrior to another warrior who is on the same side. To a warrior on the same side, a POV warrior looks like an editor of great wisdom.... Now, you'll think I'm calling you a POV warrior. Not really. I haven't noticed any of your edits. I am talking about human nature.. I was just saying, in Chris's case, it looks that way. Take it or leave it.Ling.Nut (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ling.Nut--
Open mindedness and hard nosedness are two distinct qualities. I support ChrisO's hard-nosed attitude because I trust him to be open minded (and yes, I do agree with all of the stands that he has taken that I am aware of). & that brings up an interesting topic: Does not NPOV constitute it's own POV? --NBahn (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I removed the ref tags for clarity. Hope that's OK. Answer: WP is just supposed to report what reliable sources say. No more. having said that, the battleground then moves to "Who defines which source is reliable?". Just look at the climategate talk page right now. Some POV warriors are yapping about how this source and that source are not reliable. Says who? I went to the (google cache of) the website in question, and saw tons of PhDs on the page's name list. Uhhhhhhh.... these people aren't reliable? Well, it's not impossible... but it's doubtful. More likely, they simply do not agree with the POV of the editors who are yapping that the source is unreliable. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the tobacco industry financed all sorts of research whose sole purpose was to create doubt in the public's mind about what the scientific consensus was. That's why I don't get involved in contentious issues on Wikipedia: The wiki-lawyering is often fast and furious (And speaking of which, isn't there some rule about fringe theories? If there is, then how would it apply in the issue of that university hacking incident?).
--NBahn (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you forget a rule, essay or whatever, then just try to type WP: and then a key word from the rule, such as WP:FRINGE or WP:FUCK. The university hacking thing is an event, not a theory. It really happened; it isn't an exposition of a fringe theory. It's just that the event was a politically loaded one, so...Ling.Nut (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I see.
--NBahn (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else, it's a fascinating display of how determined some people are to create and live in an alternative reality. For instance, even though the UEA says the material was stolen and just about every reliable source refers to it being hacked from their server, a series of editors has deleted these facts simply because they don't like them (e.g. [3]) - they have no contrary sources, of course. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Chris, are you aware of WP:3RR? Please don't violate it in editing that article. I've seen quite a few reverts you've made just recently. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply when reverting BLP violations. Please see WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The section you cite doesn't say that 3RR doesn't apply when reverting BLP violations....--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. Please re-read it. "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." Clear enough, no? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but these edit summaries don't seem to refer to BLP violations:

• (cur) (prev) 09:04, 27 November 2009 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (34,861 bytes) (→Leaked documents: - rm yet more weaselling - this isn't "alleged", it's undisputed fact) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 09:02, 27 November 2009 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (34,879 bytes) (rm source duplication and fixed repetition) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 09:00, 27 November 2009 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (35,064 bytes) (rm duplication, add quantity) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 08:59, 27 November 2009 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (35,117 bytes) (rm more weaselling) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 08:57, 27 November 2009 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (35,372 bytes) (→Leaked documents: - rm weaselling - no "alleged" about it, it's undisputed by any reliable source) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 08:47, 27 November 2009 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (35,396 bytes) (→Reactions: - rm weasel wording, some copyedits) (undo)

Did I miss something? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you missed the fact that those aren't reversions; they're a series of copyedits made following a whole series of (sometimes bad) changes made by other editors overnight. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, at WP:3RR it says, A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part., and these don't look like "copy editing" but a disagreement over content, as discussed on the talk page. [4] [5] [6] [7] I'm not going to file a complaint about these. Please just tone it down. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be polite in discussions

Please refrain from giving comments like this "Did A Crime (Hack) Actually Occur?: - reply to dumb question". Nsaa (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "reply to tendentious question", because it certainly is that, as well as being just plain dumb. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is Scibaby?

You left a note about Scibaby on my webpage...who is Scibaby? GardiaP (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Districts of Kosovo

Hi, Chris. Regarding this, tell me, the flags are removed because Kosovo status is disputed, if you are not familiar, see the Kosovo article. And those templates are for whole of the Kosovo, not just self proclaimed republic. Also, that republic does not have control over whole territory of Kosovo (North Kosovo). So, a flag of Republic of Kosovo is quite not NPOV. Also, Republic of Kosovo is recognised by 63 United Nations member states, and not by majority of the world. Can you, please, give me some advice about this? Under this circumstances, flag should be removed?

All best, Tadija (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please answer me, i really dont understand by what wiki rules flag of disputed region can be placed everywhere? Please, answer me. Tadija (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing material

Removing this Picture from an ongoing discussion is not proper. Since you are both an admin and a arb.com member I suppose you can delete the picture in question iff it's a copyright violation? Nsaa (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an arbcom member. :-) In any case, it's generally regarded as not being proper to delete something if you're an "involved party". -- ChrisO (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Then the picture should be restored on the talk page. No direct assumption can be made that this is not a fair use picture (if it should be in Wikipedia is another matter and is under discussion on the pictures talk page) Nsaa (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use pictures should never be used on talk pages - and there's good reason to believe that it doesn't even qualify as a fair use picture. You really need to read Wikipedia:Non-free content. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Image:Climategate.jpg

I removed the "{Di-orphaned fair use}" tag. At the time it WAS used in two articles. The template states, "Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or it is still used in articles." I DID NOT REMOVE the tag for speedy deletion it was removed by user Tony Sidaway. [8] Thanks. --Duchamps_comb MFA 19:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

3rr + Q

You're at 3rr. What's the POV I'm pushing? -Atmoz (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Two problems with your edit: first, the existing wording specifically reflects the source, while your wording does not - it's your own spin on it (hence OR); second, "also known as" makes it seem that the alternate term is a general term for it, which it clearly isn't (hence POV and OR). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not my spin, nor my OR. See [9]. Would "...sometimes referred to as..." be better? -Atmoz (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree completely with your blog post! I appreciate your efforts to find an alternative formulation, but it's not really up to us to find a wording that we like - we have to reflect what the sources say. If you can find a reliable source that discusses how the term is used (widely? narrowly? often? sometimes?) then please, by all means, cite that. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatedoor

Yeah, I know how it is with edit conflicts.

But I get irritated when there's this strict adherence to rules over common sense. Given that everyone apparently agrees that "Climategate" is widely used, why are we arguing? The main point of the rules is to provide guidance when there's a dispute over what the truth is. NPOV, OR, RS, etc, are all motivated by this problem, a problem that apparently doesn't exist in this case. Evercat (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones e-mail? I didn't add it?

You stated in the discussion Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Jones_e-mail that "Nsaa just added this bit to the article: ... ". I have only done 4 edits to the article Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident since at least 27. November, and in these four edits I only moved references down to the ref. section (i.e. completely technical work). Do I miss something? Nsaa (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably misread the edit history. It gets pretty confusing with the volume of edits on that article. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Just a bit curious by the "allegation" :-) Nsaa (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Billions

The contrarian in my said "But what it they invent an elixir of immortality tomorrow? Would billions still die?" Then I thought about how much it would probably cost, and how long it would take to ramp up production, and I realised that yes, sadly, even that wouldn't stop billions of deaths over the next century. Said, isn't it? Guettarda (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Your help in unblocking my account is noted and appreciated. Wejer (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate change in the United Kingdom‎

A new item for your watchlist. An article started today.

In November 2009 there was an e-mail hacking incident where thousands of emails and other documents were leaked on the internet. The contents of some of the documents were used to show that climate research was being manipulated to make a strong case for anthropogenic climate change.

I think that's egregiously false. Your mileage may vary, but I think it's an extraordinary thing to put into an article on global warming in the UK, not to mention that it's a suspicious time to start it. Me and my suspicious mind, obviously I need some perspective. --TS 21:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Mice and bits of balsa wood

"Citation needed"

Indeed. I should be indef blocked for my blatant BLP vio. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If you ever find those prodigal mice, let me know - they'd probably do a better job than GB... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Words fail you? Let me help

I can think of several[10] although on second thought, I'd probably be blocked. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading somewhere about one-half of the U.S. population disbelieving evolution (and ipso facto Earth's 4.5 billion year age). Truly, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.....<br. />--NBahn (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeppers, we're a wasteful country, no doubt. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Climategate" Edits

Hello! Two things I'd like to discuss about this article: 1) Hacking. Has it been substatiated that the information was hacked? I maintained "stolen" everywhere, because that was corfirmed, and put in ill-chosed "allege" in places. I was in the midst of changing the "allege" words to "apparent" when you stripped them out. Yeah, allege was bad on me. But the current reading seems to take the hacking story as proven. What do you think is the right way to handle that? 2) Specific individuals quoted in the summary. "Various allegations" is being presented against "prominent scientists" in the summary, which seems categorically POV. I tried to find a wording that presented the dispute, and what each side's position was in the summary, and left details to the main body. Do you disagree?

In any event, I won't edit the article further. My main objection has been resolved. Mark (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Hi. We don't know each other from Adam, but in the last half-hour, you've accused me of "POV falsification of sources", "the usual whitewashing and weaselling", and "disrupting" an article, and apparently even identified me as a troublemaker to another editor! That's just rude. I'm happy for you to disagree with my edits, and I'm more than happy to have a discussion based on sources, and quite content to be pointed at prior discussions on the matter, but WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL really do go a long way. — Matt Crypto 17:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

You just called my editing disruptive and accused me of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. However, I did a single edit in this article in few days - hardly disruptive (you are doing tens per day, BTW). Prior to the edit, I have extensively discussed the proposal for long time. For convenience of the opponents, I have even numbered my points 1 to 5. None of them were refuted, as far as I know; discussion died down. I made the change, you reverted it without any discussion, and threatened me. I think that your behavior is disruptive, please stop it. I am going to revert your change - please explain in the talk page first why the quote of a climatologist on the computer security is relevant. Dimawik (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)