User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

---

File:RR double swirl.jpg

shortcut to climate articles

a pretty good essay

A pocket guide to arbitration - under slow development

Userboxes

tpyoThis user both inserts and corrects typos.

prog < 0

This user is an incompetent programmer.

es-0	Este usuario del español tío está enfermo, pero su escritorio tiene suerte.

Warning! This user functions at a sub-optimal level before their morning coffee.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

sil

Boris needs KGB must structure fix

A comrade of yours has made important observations about bourgeois USA. I refuse to be a part of Japan. Alaska, being next part of Czarist empire, shall welcome me with open arms. Comrade Palin will assist the takeover. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Da, KGB never wrong. Boris must begin practice "eh". Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bob and Doug MacKenzie will rule Minnesota. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

They did always strike me as fellow travelers, or at least useful idiots. MastCell ^Talk 03:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

All idiots are useful, but some idiots are more useful than others. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? ---Skyemoor (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for a chuckle

"I am not a conspiarcy theorist. I am a scientist and freedom fighter." I have to admit I almost coughed coffee all over my nice laptop reading through that page. Bring an extra microphone stand, and a microwave oven. Antandrus (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Uff da. The most disturbing thing about that page is that it was probably not written under the influence of drugs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium Homeopathy

That article is truly awful. However, Dana Ullman is clearly a better writer than he is a physician or scientist. It's almost as bad as his awful books. Verbal chat 18:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium is an interesting place. I was active there for a while but gradually stopped for various reasons. I really, really wanted (and still want) Citizendium to succeed but at the moment things do not look promising. Some of its problems are not its own fault -- it's hard to spin up a brand new project -- but it's also been damaged by self-inflicted wounds. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

People like Ullman are willing to put up with the hoops you have to jump through to get on there and edit. I'm not so keen on being attacked by people who know my real name and location. It would help if they were a bit quicker to do something about people like Ullman. It is a shame - I thought it could be good, but now it's past saving. They could start again, with a new fork of WP - but I guess their editors wouldn't allow that. WP is by no means perfect, in fact I used to hate it. I'm not sure how I feel now :) Verbal chat 18:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My view of WP parallels Churchill's view of democracy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. re Homeopathy: I find it interesting that homeopathic treatment apparently produces distinctive quirks of grammar and punctuation, such as those shared by Dr.J and User:JeanandJane. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why hasn't the account of J&J been investigated as a sock of Dr.J? -- Brangifer (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the benefit of the doubt...

And I've made it (hopefully) perfectly clear on the AE page that it is MY clarification and my view, and I do not deign to speak, or what have you for the Arbitration Commmittee. :) SirFozzie (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Deigning to presume to make the presumptuous assumption... oh dear, I'm going insane again. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

More people should go insane, making insanity the accepted normal! Then Sane people would be insane and only insane people would be sane! (tries to reason that out.....) *Fozzie's Head explode* SirFozzie (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User:William M. Connolley, you will be blocked from editing. What the hell? Mark Shaw (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Aww, don't spoil the fun, Mark! I was just breaking out the popcorn! (Check the history of Boris' userpage.) Awickert (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

heh...are you stirring up trouble, Boris? :-) R. Baley (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ummmmmm. Oops! Carry on.... Mark Shaw (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[1] :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's comfortable not being an admin any more. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Pietru ANI

At least hams can be cured. → You need to be pun-ished for that statement ;-) And I thought "socker mom" (cf ItsLassieTime ANI post) was bad... MuZemike 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Stupidity hall of fame

Maybe you need a copy of this photo [2] :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

heh! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Luv da quote. Now I will feel even more self-righteous than usual when I ride my bike home from work this afternoon. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A peek behind the denialist curtain

I'm curious what your thoughts are about this. I thought that the most fascinating part of the Global Climate Coalition primer ([3]) is the end, where they assess and deconstruct the "contrarian" arguments of people like Lindzen and Patrick Michaels. Climate change denialism is probably entering a phase analogous to where the tobacco industry was in the late 1990s - we can expect more documents to leak out gradually; the racketeering trial (a la U.S.A. v. Philip Morris et al.) is probably still 5-10 years away. MastCell ^Talk 03:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh ... my ... G...

That's one of the funniest things I've found waiting for me on my own talk page, after just leaving the house for a couple hours, in recent memory. What makes it extra-special is the one just above who is calling me a fascist! It even inspired me to pull my Quotations from Chairman Mao from its place of distinction on my shelf (next to my Quotations from Chairman LBJ -- now there's a splendid little souvenir of the Sixties). Antandrus (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr. IP24 has gone to visit the Lubyanka. I understand Comrade Beria will visit shortly. Given the focus of Mr. IP's outrage, I would have thought he'd stick with "fascist." As for the sayings of the Chairman, I believe he stated that "Power grows from the barrel of a block button", but I could be confused. Acroterion _(talk) 20:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Fasces and sickle

Just what I was looking for; thanks. Acroterion _(talk) 19:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess the next problem is a severe one: if my right jackboot doesn't know what the left is doing, where can I go to seek asylum now? Antandrus (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If right jackboot not being politically aligned with left then needing to arrest cobbler. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Note

As soon as I opened your talk page I realized who you are. Another one of those who cannot stand people with different opinions. That is not a personal insult, that is an assertion of the obvious. I have arguments and therefore the right to doubt climate change quasiscience. I provided several references that were removed with an argument that "some people think it is not appropriate", or that references are "crap", or that "we mustn't spoil an excellent article". Triumph of ideology over facts.Jaksap (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dang those liberals with their reality-bias! Although post-modernism used to be an idea associated with leftists... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The obvious doesn't need to be "asserted". Being that it's obvious and all. The right to doubt something and the right to have those doubts prominently displayed on someone else's webserver are two different things, though very few people seem capable of making that distinction. MastCell ^Talk 06:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Alexis Herman, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop. Consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh. you may have just taken that first, irrevocable step toward becoming Short Brigade Harvester Boris On Wheels... MastCell ^Talk 03:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bourgeois hooliganism one of few pleasurable activities in this collective. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

SBHBOW? Hard to say. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

ShoBHoBOW? Even NASA couldn't do it. They'd scrap the mission because they couldn't make an acronym. Awickert (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

NASA has never scrapped anything due to lack of acronyms. I present for your consideration the Combined Operational Load-Bearing External Resistance Treadmill. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

...or change the mission name :-). Awickert (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it isn't as if Ray-ray hadn't changed his name before, but I *like* this one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Rough justice

You might think I'm a ruffian, but I don't think you've picked the right time to beat me up. I've been much better behaved recently! Having a policy dispute is not a reason for a topic ban. You could just have had a quite word on my TP. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

long term effects of ill-informed rambling

can you have another look at LTEoGW? I'd love to know what your source is for 3C or not of deep ocean warming. I have no idea who's studied ocean floor warming. Can you give me some pointers? Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything you know is wrong

Seems rather familiar..... could it be because May 25 Is Darwinius Day, The Most Important Day IN 47 MILLION YEARS! ? What would Darwinius say?? . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Har! Great, thanks, I wasn't aware of the video. Gotta start wasting more time on YouTube. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A small bit of amusement...

The Beatles? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You gotta marvel at people who do stuff like this, right down to the realistic Höfner and Ricky 325. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:LAME

I agree. Describing someone rolled over by a tank as "Saint Pancake" should be a no-brainer.

Ridgeback fan? Great dogs. Breed profile is that they are supposed to be a bit standoffish, but the ones that my dad and his wife keep are awesome - they have 6, with 10 puppies on the way. Nathan ^T 02:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yo big boy

Seen this [4]? You wouldn't have a copy of CC handy would you? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Our library gots it. Will send along a copy of the pdf. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for your side of the story

Hi SBHB,
I'm currently looking at responding to a request for third party opinion in respects of a recent talk-page delete by yourself (see here).
I realize that there can be very good reason for such deletes, but would appreciate a brief comment from yourself on the matter: particularly if there is some sort of history with this guy and global warming issues?
I don't need an essay, and I'm certainly not asking you to justify yourself (my brief review of that page suggests your hardly attempting to disrupt constructive contributions) - just wanting a little background on the issue from your point-of-view.
Thanks for your assistance, -- Muzhogg (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Request denied. Move along, nothing to see here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this Boris Badenov yet?

[5]. Oy. I suspect the "C" word is on the way. Antandrus (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You may know this if you're a fan, but in Arrested Development, the Bluth family yacht was christened The Seaward. Second-best pun ever. MastCell ^Talk 03:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL! That's hilarious. Most puns are about as subtle as a hand grenade. Occasionally someone builds one with a silencer. :) Antandrus (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Boris needing long rest in fine Soviet hotel. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Seaward has arrived. It's even "reckless." Darn, I'm getting good at this. Antandrus (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That people could actually want a Wikipedia article on themselves (or someone they care about) blows my mind. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Vanity and hubris overcome better judgment. It was already an old story when Aeschylus told it. MastCell ^Talk 03:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Rule 5 violation ongoing here

Hi Boris. Ive searched the Help pages for "Rule 5" (violatons etc.). Can't find anything about it, please help.--Damorbel (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It was Kim and Awickert who violated Rule 5. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Low willpower. Awickert (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel so bad -- we all have occasional slips. You penalty is two shots of chilled Aqavit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we have to slip first, or can we go straight to the Aqavit? -Atmoz (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

2 Ålborg's going down ;-) (never have a freezer without) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Still don't know what Rule 5 is, something about whose turn to get the drinks?--Damorbel (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

PLACEMENT COMES FIRST. MastCell ^Talk 21:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Violation of the Law of Fives occurs only in the head of one with unsufficient imagination. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Where's Keeper? We're talkin' baseball here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Boris, Newbie Help has a few observations [[6]] on "Rule 5", they seem good to me.--Damorbel (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but that's not it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"That's not it". What's the problem? Heard about it but can't quite remember where? Perhaps there's a clue here [7], you never know.--Damorbel (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to go on record here to say, I haven't the foggiest idea what this thread is about, nor why I'm reading it, nor why my name was brought up. In short, huh? Keeper | 76 04:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Email me. (Yours apparently is disabled.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't do email. Or IRC. Not for Wikipedia. I barely function, really. I've mastered few things in life, come to think of it. I imagine whatever this thread is about is all being taken care of quickly and quietly by magic fairies, according to the bylaws of Rule 5. I need to sleep now. Keeper | 76 04:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Rmv personal 'essay' on Global Warming talk

I have seen enough misinformation 'proving' global warming doesn't exist even in the few times I have gone to the above talk page to know that the deleted info was probably bogus. And I certainly can't blame anyone presented with exactly the same arguments as they refuted months ago, for wanting to make it all just go away. But wouldn't it be better to just say so, and let the information fall on its own demerits? What exactly about that info makes it an essay, anyway? Anarchangel (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

here's the whole quote

"Stating that "Michael Jackson's doctor gave him so many allopathic drugs (all together) that he died!" is a WP:BLP violation" <-- Thanks for explaining that. What "Avathaar" said was, "...imagine if all allopaths were portrayed murderers/manslaughterers just because Michael Jackson's doctor gave him so many allopathic drugs (all together) that he died!", which is a hypothetical and a valid analogy. Related reading: accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. --JWSchmidt (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You've effectively answered the other matter I was wondering about as well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

For your enlightenment:

• Mitchell and Webb: If Homeopathy Beats Science

• "Don't drink water - it remembers all the shit it had in it."

-- Brangifer (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For the clarity of mind to quote Candide in the midst of an earthquake, fire and siege, I do confer on thee this Barnstar of Good Humor. GTBacchus(talk) 20:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been told I can be a bit obtuse nonsensical too sophisticated for the philistines around here, so it's nice to know when I've managed to get a point across. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What we need here is a nice little auto-da-fé to handle those philistines.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

PhotoReading

Thanks for helping with PhotoReading. If you'll notice the comments on the talk page, I'm in the process of stubbing the entire article. I'm still hopeful that new references can be found, but with what we have now I wouldn't be against deleting it. --Ronz (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the article simply because I'm interested in such things (being an educator on the one hand, and having tons of stuff I have to read on the other) but there may not be enough third-party coverage to justify it. I haven't been able to find any further references other than promotional materials and blogs. The MacNamara report is solid, but even the company's own materials are sketchy. This supposedly answers the question "How does the PhotoReading process work?" but it doesn't. Being able to read and understand an entire issue of Geophysical Research Letters in a few minutes would make life easier, but alas... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusation

You have been accused of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November. Scared? Papa November (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious. Ruth is stranger than Richard. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nathan ^T 18:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Beer? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Holy schnizzle. That would be a sockpuppet ring to be proud of. I thought I was slick, since I operate this account along with User:Jpgordon, User:SlimVirgin, and User:Jayjg (see [8] for evidence), but that would be even more impressive. MastCell ^Talk 18:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

@Nathan: That's bitchin'. Drop by any time. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically I've been here before. I just assumed you missed the orange bar ;) Nathan ^T 19:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's that sig - he probably glanced at your comment and thought it was me, since I practically live here. MastCell ^Talk 19:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Or one of your sockpuppets. I've been tempted to register User:Legion before someone takes it.[9] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Frei Hans

Based on his unblock requests, the user didn't learn anything and is still aquesing editors of disruptive editing and sockpuppeting. Just though I'd give you a heads up.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 05:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Rule Five

Possibly another Rule Five violation? Not wanting to burn any more of this fine summer morning on this, I think I won't post there again. By the way, what is the name for that logical fallacy -- if it is one, technically -- where your opponent just ignores everything you say; the "talking to a wall" fallacy? Aside from "Rule Five", I mean. Cheers, ..er, I mean mir i druzhba! Antandrus (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Not a logical fallacy, really, but it should be considered a violation of WP:CIV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comrade Boris-stubborn needing stay in hospital. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Like many things Soviet, the psikhushka is making a comeback. Just ask Larisa Arap. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks

I just wanted to say thank you for your insight. I appreciate that! ;) — Ched :  ?  03:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yin and yang, light and dark, hot and cold. Or in the words of another great philosopher, I say high, you say low, You say why, and I say I don't know. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had a strange run of comments the last couple days which related to the music I most identified with while I was going through my "growing years". The Beatles. Odd somehow, that the things I found most relevant back then should become so relevant so many years later. ;) — Ched :  ?  06:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ian Plimer

You may wish to comment here. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 05:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Is nobody going to aid me in resisting the scibabies and deniers? Your comments at the RfCs on this Talk page would be gratefully accepted. Thanks! ► RATEL ◄ 02:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

David Legates Unreferenced Section

User:Raul654 has just deleted the entire publication list in support to the Research section of the article. I was just writing a (rather lengthy) entry on the talk page asking him to explain. I can't just revert him since he does have the power to block. Please take a look at the edit history and talk page. --70.234.164.230 (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked. Wikipedia bios don't ordinarily include someone's whole publication list. This is not discriminating against Legates; we don't list Jim Hansen's pubs either, to pick someone on the opposite end of the global warming issue. A few especially prominent publications might be OK but a better course would be to give a link to his CV (most people have theirs online nowadays). Let me know if you have any other questions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for duplicating messages. Im stupid enough to forget that you can watch a page when logged in. I will try and provide references within writeout on Legates' research. Thanks for the explanation.--70.234.164.230 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting help

If I may please request another favor of you-- would you please help mediate the emerging editing conflict at David Legates (i know, give someone a finger...) Here are the article as I found it a couple of weeks ago, and my latest edit (diff.) Throughout this I have seen many reverts from User:Raul654 most of which were a little too summarily explained (if explained at all). Most of my edits were directed at adding references and providing a balanced picture based on the guy's publications and any verifiable external refs. As you have seen already, I went as far as summarizing all the paper abstracts I could locate online, as well as giving exact amounts of funding based on Greenpeace records. I have even searched old website versions at archive.org. For some reason i fail to understand Raul654's rationale. Is there something I am missing? Any suggestion or WP guideline I am conflicting with? Any way I could try to reason with Raul654 that would not attract a block? Any bit of help would be greatly appreciated!--70.234.164.230 (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that describing all of his activities isn't the goal of an encyclopedia article. Instead, discuss the main thrust of his work and anything especially important that he has accomplished. For example, the global climatological analyses that he did with Cort Wilmott has been very widely used (though now mostly superseded by the updated Wilmott and Matsuura analyses) and probably has been cited hundreds of times in the professional literature. The article doesn't even mention this, which is in my view his most important professional product. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Boris, since you seem to be a lot more knowledgeable of the field than I am, and if I'm not asking too much, could you please provide a very brief summary on this with minimal pointers to those most prominent pieces of work? (If you give just the authors and year, or year and journal, I can then go in and edit the complete references into the text). Just 2-3 sentences? The more controversial work could then easily be described separately and qualified as such. I have to admit that right now that section is mainly a hodge-podge of ideas. --70.234.164.230 (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussions such as this really should be taking place on the article talk page, where everyone interested in the topic can easily see them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Copied there --70.234.164.230 (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

The recent issues with Kirill and Rlevese really bring home the point that while we're quick to criticize when arbcom does something wrong, we rarely thank you guys for the job you do. Sometimes I agree with what you do, sometimes I disagree, but I never doubt that you're doing what you think is right. I'm as guilty as anybody -- given the culture around this place I don't want it to look like I'm sucking up. But screw it, I'm going to say what I want.
So: thanks Roger. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much :)  Roger Davies ^talk 08:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Missed your question

Hi. I missed your query at WQA, and now the thread is closed. You asked what I would have used for a block summary. I would have indicated the actions that the block was intended to stop. For example: "Repeated accusations of 'threatening messages' in response to attempts at communication. Warned repeatedly." See how that conveys actual information, whereas "General malaise" simply indicates that the blocking admin considers the issue boring (irrelevant), finds his personal feelings to be worth yakking about in a block summary (callow), and doesn't care to convey the appropriate information (unprofessional).

Why not describe the problem behavior in a what that is useful and accessible for later readers of the block log? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bass lines

You never took me up on my request to list what you consider the best bass lines of all time. I'll start: Sneakin' Sally Through the Alley. OK, your turn. MastCell ^Talk 22:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you ask simple questions, like "What is the nature of beauty?" or "How can we ensure lasting peace and cooperation in the Middle East?"

There's just so much out there so there's got to be some way of narrowing it down. Let's begin by sticking to "pop" music. As for playing style, I like bass pyrotechnics as much as the next guy but there's something special about when the bassist keeps the whole band focused. And usually nobody notices. Bass players often joke that playing bass in a band is like being an offensive lineman - when you're not doing your job the team sucks, and when you are doing your job the quarterback and receivers get all the glory.

So I'll leave Flea and Jaco and all those guys behind for the moment and name a few tunes where the bass grounds the song in a really special way.

• "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" - If someone was to ask "What does it mean when you say a band is 'tight'?" I'd play them this. I don't even know who plays bass on it but he's great. This is one of the best examples of the traditional role of the bass in holding down the bottom end and making a groove for everything else to build on. Some would say this is not technically impressive bass playing because he doesn't operate his instrument like a GAU-8/A. But listen - his rhythmic sense is perfect, and when he's just barely behind the beat he's behind in exactly the right way, with each note perfectly articulated. You've got to be really good to play this simply.
• My flippant answer was going to be "anything Jack Casady played," since he's been my favorite player since I was about 14 years old (which was a good *cough*ahem* years ago). "Crown of Creation" (from the album of the same name) has to be right up there. Stylistically this is about as far from "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" as you can get. This song has several distinct parts and Casady is in total control of the group for each of them. The passage where he gradually brings the whole band down for the slow, sparse ending is just amazing - the best analogy I can think of is that it's like watching the Space Shuttle gliding down from orbit back to Earth. (And Boris approving of his bass balalaika as most prized instrument.)
• No list like this one would be complete without Paul McCartney. Although he did some great, melodic playing even in their early days (listen to his line on "All My Loving") he really flowered from the Sgt. Pepper period onward, when he began overdubbing the bass as a separate track. "With a Little Help From My Friends" is my choice today, though tomorrow it might be something different.

I could go on and on, but some of us have to go to work in the morning. Maybe I'll add some more when inspiration strikes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Paul McCartney's playing was remarkable - actually, even more so in the Beatles' earlier years, because back then the expectations for a bassist were so much lower. He was one of the first players in mainstream pop/rock to approach the bass as an actual musical instrument. Even the most straightforward pop-by-numbers song from the early Beatles catalog has an interesting bass line. I have to admit that I can't really appreciate the Jefferson Airplane, but I probably haven't given it enough of a chance. OK, I'll go next - earlier Elvis Costello is pretty impressive - Alison, Pump It Up, Beyond Belief... MastCell ^Talk 04:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised there was no Entwistle, Squire, Lake, Berlin, etc. Then again, you did say you'd do more, so I'll look back in again. I'll also mention Greg Reeves, from CSN&Y's Deja Vu. --Skyemoor (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Substitute" and "Summertime Blues" from Live at Leeds were on the list, along with of course "Behind Blue Eyes," but I edited them out in the interest of brevity. Sadly his bass is lower in the mix on the CD version than on vinyl. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Automated archiver

Hey Boris. Talk page is filling up. If you want, here's the code for an automated archiver complete with archive box and search. Just copy it it here.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{archives|search=yes}}

It's set to archive threads seven days or older, it'll stop if there are only four threads left. Here's the documentation. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Resign

I thought you were resigning but you were only re-signing :-) [10] William M. Connolley (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Golly gee, I forgot the hyphen. It's not like I'd ever do that on purpose... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Next, he'll say he's in retail (visualize the hyphen). --Skyemoor (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Climate change

Over the next few days, I think I'm going to try to decruftify and regrammaticize the geologic portions of the climate change article. My background is not in climate, so if you could keep an eye on the changes, I'd appreciate it. Awickert (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Boris join patriotic comrade in fraternal assistance for glory of Motherland. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Inspiring. Вставайте люди русские! MastCell ^Talk 06:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Andrey busy working for collective good, make edits late at night as part of additional "voluntary" labor. Is afraid grammar may suffering, Boris Shortinov. Awickert (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of arbcom discussion

Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you can understand how hilarious this is. Thanks, it's very helpful. --Abd (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We live to serve. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The DRAMAOUT

Apparently, we are currently in the midst of a WP:DRAMAOUT. As my personal hero, Tom Lehrer, once observed of National Brotherhood Week: "On the first day of the week, Malcolm X was killed, which gives you an idea of how effective the whole thing is." MastCell ^Talk 06:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

... and sorry for vandalizing your userpage. I couldn't resist. MastCell ^Talk 23:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the DRAMAOUT is going just swimmingly, far and away better than one dared to hope. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What, who thought that nonsense was gong to be anything more than a slush of empty public posturing, with a smattering of well-intentioned but naive participants? More Kool Aid is needed. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice to all users in the arb case

This is a general notice to all users involved in the Abd/WMC arbitration case that further disruptive conduct within the case will not be tolerated and will result in blocks being issued by Clerks or Arbitrators as needed. More information is available at the announcement here; please be sure to read that post in full. Receipt of this message does not necessarily imply that you are at risk of a block or have been acting in a disruptive manner; it is a general notice to all that the Clerks and ArbCom are aware of issues in the case and will not be tolerating them any longer. If you have any questions, please post them to the linked section. Thank you.

Thought that I had, sorry. Normally I wouldn't bother since you've obviously noticed it anyway, but you do have a good point. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 13:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your expertise is needed

Boris,

I received an email:

Beautiful Russian Women Are Waiting to Meet You.

http://www.whalewaxyellow.com/click.cgi?sid=82438251&cid=6146921&ed=32754&eip=38100&ld=32754&lip=38100&url=t1

Online dating has brought a whole new meaning to finding your soul mate.

Your choices are no longer limited to the people in your hometown or county.

I write to ask you, why whale wax yellow for meeting beautiful Russian women? Is there secret meaning to this? Please explain, comrade harvester. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Boris never divulge secrets of whale wax under imperialist torture. Comrades in Committee for State Security visiting small violent Mexican dog. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comrades and sockpuppers most diligent revolutionaries. (When I read Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian recently, I couldn't help but think of "Killer Chihuahua" in a completely different context.) Antandrus (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to have given your literary adventures a new aspect. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

fyodor

Hal McGee's site says his name is spelled Lichtenverg not Lichtenberg (http://halmcgee.com/hal50thbirthdaymania.html) but I can't be too sure. do you have more information on the artist? riffic (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been casually (very casually) acquainted with him since we were both at the University of Virginia in the late 1970s-early 80s. I'll email him to double-check how he spells his name. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Economic cost

Boris, need help on the "Economic" section of Global warming, here's the link to the discussion.[11] ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have little knowledge of or interest in the economic stuff (despite my undergrad degree being in economics). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Have less. Thanks anyway, Wikipedia values people like you, not explicit, doesn't have to be. My two cents, professorship can mean a lot, but should value improving the community, they're your barrier between PoV-pushers and improving the encycolopedia. ;) ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Petition for Feedback

In the past, you have been a key contributor on the Robert Young (author) page. I recently posted some statements on the discussion page for contributor feedback. The goal for these recent statements is to give a synopsis of the primary content found in Young's books. I am not sure if you have seen the latest draft I posted. I do not want to post anything in the article until I have full approval from the other contributors like yourself. So I am writing to ask your opinion on the matter and support so that a representation of the content found in Young's books can be included in some form or another in his article. Side note - this may come up so I will explain my reasoning now: I referenced his blog a few times because he seems to sum up the bulk of the content found in his books in his blog called Articles of Health. If that is unacceptable then I can reference the same content from his books. Respectfully, Honest Research (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you self-revert?

[12]? I was just trying to add an "I don't care" option and sign it. --GoRight (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just having a little fun, but decided that we should take BLPs a bit more seriously. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for input on Satellite Temp Image

Based on your advice I have applied year labels, also changed gray background to white. Regards, SunSw0rd (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

+++

You said: "As for trend lines, RSS and UAH disagree with you -- they make a point of reporting the slope of the trend line and continually updating it." Can you please provide me with a source file at each respective site (e.g. RSS and UAH) that shows this? Thanks. SunSw0rd (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

UAH: last line in [13]. RSS is on [14]. -Atmoz (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. They also keep it updated on their less-technical web pages, e.g. [15]. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Indian newspaper review, Heaven & earth

SBH Boris, would you care to express your opinion on this topic (again)? The current question is whether the supplemental info (book review, financial paper etc.) should be in the footnote (as I believe -- this sort of stuff is almost always footnoted) or in the article text (as another editor believes). See Note 36 for my proposal. TIA & cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Account

Posted one comment under another account maybe a year ago (have since forgotten what the account was even named). But this is it for me. That's why I only commented on the talk page. I don't know that it was even appropriate for me to do that, but I thought it was better than wading into the Workshop page without any real standing to do so. WorriedScientist (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. You've probably noticed that emotions are high in this particular case, so when the first edit of a brand-new account is to comment on this case people might get edgy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Understood. That's why I replied right away. WorriedScientist (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WT:NPOV

I just wanted to clarify something, in case you hadn't already caught it yourself. On WT:NPOV very recently, apparently we were each talking in the context of two different proposals-- about two very different things. I was discussing in the context of the entire elongated talk section w.r.t. the notion of replacing the just-deleted "WP:MORALIZE" section, AKA "Let the facts speak for themselves"-- that's why I started a new subsection. I now see my assertions seem to have been mistakenly taken essentially as an argument to remove all instances of the word "fact" from the policy at large. My comments there were actually directed against the notion of using the word "fact(s)" prominently as a policy section as had been under discussion for the past week or so, a discussion that apparently still lingered to some extent. As I mentioned a bit later, the existing "simple formulation" section of the policy uses the word "fact(s)" multiple times in a way that's reasonably well defined, a definition that includes cited opinions, speculations, arguments, conclusions, etc.. It's long been in the policy written in a way that fairly effectively avoids the kind of pratfall I was describing at the top of the talk section "WT:NPOV#What's a fact?". ...
The additional discussion about "Boris' proposal" seems to be running into a similar difficulty, though, w.r.t. using "fact" as a description of what article content should be limited to. I've no clue how to succinctly phrase that passage so as to constitute an improvement that can likely gain consensus. Seems to me it's already quite reasonable, perhaps as good as it will ever be. Despite the point raised by many who commented in the very recent RFC and related discussion, especially about the difficulties many newbies initially have with what the community means by "fact" in this context (particularly POV-pushers), do you think it best to just advocate leaving the summary sentence of "A simple formulation" exactly as it has been? ... Kenosis (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

You asked me to come back with an "explanation", correct? So I asked what needed to be explained and you blanked it. The point I'm making is that you shouldn't make personal attacks, such as insinuating that well-meaning editors are trolls. Some may not be as nice about it as me. Please don't continue to operate in such a hostile fashion. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Where on earth did I insinuate you were a troll? And let me get this straight - you flat-out refuse to explain to me what the heck you're talking about, and now you're calling me hostile? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I linked it to you. You said "rule 5," which you referred to in other posts on that particular talk page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk about assuming the worst! Rule 5 was a reminder to Stephan not to do anything that would reflect poorly on himself (see this link for further explanation). If you want to continue that condescending lecture about assuming good faith I'm all ears... just be sure to take your own advice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I completely misinterpreted this. I thought you were talking about this, which you linked higher in the talk page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The meaning is the same in both places. In future please be sure you know what you're talking about before you start flinging accusations of personal attacks and the like. I've looked at your history and you appear to have a habit of assuming the worst of people based on flimsy evidence. Not good. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Boris angry because he can no longer sound cryptic about Rule 5. Awickert (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the real rule 5. -Atmoz (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So do I. But cabal secrets must be closely guarded. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no cabal, and this is not a secret message. 000393DB396E. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither is this. 66:6e:6f:72:64. Antandrus (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

57:65:62:65:72:6e:3f Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

4e:6f:20:63:61:62:61:6c:20:68:65:72:65:3f --GoRight (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

49:74:20:77:61:73:20:69:6e:20:74:68:65:20:63:69:67:61:72:2e Antandrus (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WWVzIEdvUmlnaHQsIHRoZXJlIHJlYWxseSBpcyBubyBjYWJhbC4u --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

V2FybmluZzogU2VrcmV0IGVuY29kaW5nIGNvbXByb21pc2VkLiAgU3dpdGNoaW5nIHRvIGVuY3J5cHRpb24gdHlwZSAidy1lbmNvZGUiLg==

begin

L5&AE<F4@:7,@;F\@8V%B86PN("!,;VYG(&QI=F4@=&AE(&-A8F%L(2`@.BD`

`

end

--GoRight (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

6'9dFb"cC@8JD@BJG'KP)&4*6N-JBfpND@jR)'C[FL"dD'Pc)'Pc)(0KCQ8J,5"eG@9ZBfpNC5"cGA*P)'PcELGd --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Y'all must not want me in your cabal. The secret decoder ring you sent me decodes everything as either "a prize-in-every-package" or "the more you eat, the more you want." -Atmoz (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

One is the dash, one is the dot. The Morse is to be interpreted by pronouncing the letters as in Hungarian and interpreting the resulting sound as backwards spoken Xhosa. But shhhhhh! Mum's the word! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate yor support

I appreciate your support for the arbcom but I do not wish to run / be a member of the ArbCom at this time. Thank you for your support and your good wishes though. User:Smith Jones 18:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I think you would be a good candidate -- arbcom needs some fresh ideas. But I will take the banner off my user page in deference to your wishes. Please let me know if you ever reconsider! Best - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you for your consideration. I want to build up my article creations first and focus on content before i get involved in Anything that involved. User:Smith Jones 19:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hahahahahahaha. It'd be funnier if SJ came up with this one himself. Enigma^msg 03:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Came up with the idea himself. Enigma^msg 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. It strikes me as just a bit impolite for you ridicule a serious proposal in this way, but you're entitled to your opinion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming the proposal was as serious a proposal as Smith jones is a serious editor.

Anyway, there's a mistake at the top of the page. "If you came here because someone read you message on another website..." Enigma^msg 17:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume it is Boris-Soviet-pop-cultere-eque, e.g., "in Soviet Russia, newspaper read you". But I could be giving a typo too much credit. Awickert (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby thread

I'm sure you have good reason to think that this is a Scibaby thread, but is it also not useful for improving the article? I mean, the way it was presented was useless (i.e., "bloggers write scientific papers"), but later iterations seemed to become more useful. Awickert (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but responding to his threads gives him positive reinforcement. My reasoning is that if he is silently reverted without getting a reaction he will get bored and go away. By the way I strongly suspect that Scibaby/Obedium is a "project" of a certain known user, but since Scibaby has influential supporters I'm not going to say anything until I'm dead solid certain. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. The only hard part is how to insert reasonable info without enabling socks. But since I don't actually care enough about any of this, I will just drop it. I've been on a binge of restricting myself to article space edits, and it makes me feel much happier about the project. Awickert (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Note to Hersfold

For what it's worth, I genuinely believe that that sort of toxic sniping is part of the problem with the existing Arbitration process. The clerks have said that parties have done a poor job of seeking assistance in response to inappropriate conduct, so I'm taking them at their word, and asking them to intervene rather than biting back at GoRight's goading. While I agree with you that GoRight's attempt to ingratiate is painfully transparent and likely to be ineffective on that count, I also think that the innuendo is over the line of acceptable behaviour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight

I had interpreted the discussion as being critical of the block and Hersfold assenting to said criticism and saying he couldn't lift the block at the time because he was at work and not on his admin account.

If he returns to his previous behavior, or offends in some other way, then let the block be reimposed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the reply. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for voicing your opinion at my RfA. I will do my best to take the criticism to heart and improve my communication style. As for AfDs I will go slow and be sure I learn the basics first. I will work to gain your trust by dilligent work. Thanks for participating in the RfA.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know

I did go to Hersfold's page to ask him/her to look into the exchange between Abd and myself. I just cannot allow that conversation to go unchallenged. Thanks for letting me know because I missed Hersfold saying this somehow with all the noise going on. Is this case the norm of how things go at an arbcom case or is this one just an anomally? After this case, I don't see what pleasures can be had in an administrator capacity. I understand why you seem happier now that you don't wheel the mop anymore. I used to eavesdrop on your other name, it was a fun page to watch editor have a good time.  :) Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Abd

I've come to the same conclusion already - we loose either way. Abd will bury any comment in his reply, and remaking it will just see it buried again. If we don't reply he wins, and if we do the result will be the same. My fault for being drawn into it, given that I already know how he works. On the plus side, I'm a bit happier with the direction the voting is going, I've added a bit of new evidence, and that's it. - Bilby (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Shunning is a wonderful approach that is too seldom used. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem being that it works best on article talk pages. Not so well when a third party is involved. But given that replying won't make a difference, I figure that we might as well save ourselves the trouble. :) - Bilby (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooh

Ooh, pointy [16]. But apparently correct :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be pointy, just trying to bring the policy in line with accepted practice. The most accurate statement would be "Users are free to reinstated edits made by banned editors, as long as they take responsibility for the content of those edits." The policy should reflect what we actually allow and prohibit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it clear this is accepted practice? It looks more like a somewhat odd interpretation by CHL (though I agree GR/A seem to persistently do this and are never sanctioned, so in practice you may be right). I started a discussion on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, discussion continues there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Schmidt

I'm trying a softly-softly approach to this article, which has been the subject of much edit-warring with suspected scibaby socks. I'm discussing the question of the added quote seriously although I think it's pretty obvious that it doesn't belong. In case you (or anybody else reading this talk page) are interested... --TS 04:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

[17] Credit where credit is due. --Abd (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Woof Ticket

Your "education?" What, when your mama taught you to wipe after you poop? Brah, when I was your age, we learned economics by getting ours, skimming off the rich tickets for the game off (your gramma) ol' lady Jones (she couldn't have known better. I think.) We'd tell tall stories about others and those around them, looking to diffuse tension by teasing, that was "doing the dozens." We'd tell boastful tall tales about ourselves, that was selling a "wolf ticket." WP's article on Wolf Tickets is not quite right (the discussion is more relevant to "The Dozens"), but perhaps that's another project.

Anyway, my friend, I won't claim to know people, but I'm glad to know that I'm probably not alone in recognizing the many ways that amusing but potentially harmful wordgames can be manifested, and how some believe that perhaps amusing wordgames can prevent more serious harm. What's interesting for WP is we're still trying to figure out just how much informal wordplay might be "too much." Steveozone (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bowed goat potbellied barnyard that only he noticed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wordgames. I bet you don't talk like that to your mother. Go on and do unspeakable things to she (or he) who deserves it; you've earned as much, having promulgated an epistolic example of linguistic obfuscation. Many such would be ashamed of themselves, and the infected and dangling thesauri they drag in the dirt behind them, my friend. ;) I think we're on the same side here, but if not, we're done with the lame dozens permitted on WP (so long as you are, but if not I'll go on until your mama screams my name again; I'll sell you a ticket for that one). Peace, dude. I think we agree on the Jackboots. In fact, I know it, and I'll apologize if I came off otherwise. Thanks for the acknowledgement on ANI, my friend. Steveozone (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

Idea for your next contest

Funniest quotation from this Conservapedia article. I got halfway through the first line before busting up. But then again, I remember Fred Flintstone. Antandrus (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"generally believed to be extinct" Yabba dabba doo! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Nominate "The description of the "Thunder bird" of American Indians matches the descriptions of pterosaurs." from [18]. It's a somewhat subtle joke, though...--Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey c'mon, don't knock the place, this article is pretty good :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Maybe we should send our mutual friend over there to set them straight. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you get into trouble with the Geneva conventions (biological agents), not the mention the US constitutions prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments. As a Soviet you may get away with it, of course... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Awww, Stephan. SBHB, moi? While "glass of cold water" was tempting, I'll admit, I'm not likely to dive into an environment where everyone else is Right. I already did that, once is enough. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, it was a cheap shot. But the opportunity was so inviting... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Abd, on a more serious note you might try editing at Citizendium. It's a more genteel atmosphere and they are very accommodating of minority views. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

← While the Conservapedia article on cold fusion is refreshingly brief and probably more useful than our own, I would nominate this one for your page. Unless it hits a bit too close to home. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not fair! This is not TEH RULEZ! You must pick a quote from the proposed article - if you look over all of Conservapedia, bogometers are gonna burn out too fast!--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Fairness" is a petit-bourgeois conceit, as I'm sure Boris would agree. TEH RULEZ are for Deviationists and Trotskyites. MastCell ^Talk 20:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dem dar perfessers done gonna get stomped by dem dinosaurs fer shure with dem carazy libberuhl val-yous. Gonna serve em right I tellya, jus like Mistah Smith in Lost in Space. He wuz a libberuhl perfesser wid an agender. Stompa-stompa. Whar ah com from dar haint no perfessers. Antandrus (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you bein' from the land of my home folk? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah reckon yall recolleck how dar comm-paytryots Ilf and Petrov dun com visit mah hum-bull a-bode. Dey haint no perfessers wid no dun "perfesser val-yous" I sah. Antandrus (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you mention it: I've often thought that Одноэтажная Америка would make a great movie, in the buddy-road-trip or fish-out-of-water genre. Sort of like Borat with a soul, or The Motorcycle Diaries (film) with a sense of humor. MastCell ^Talk 06:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a sublime idea. If only someone would do it! I picked up a copy of that book in English at a used book shop in San Diego earlier this year, and I couldn't believe I hadn't seen it before. Shostakovich writes about Ilf and Petrov in his memoirs (he also had a weird and disorienting experience when he came to the U.S.) Their photography is quite good too. Antandrus (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Many years ago the local TV station would run Ma and Pa Kettle movies on their late-late-late show. I'd come home in the wee hours from practicing in some band and watch them to wind down. (Yeah, I was a weird kid.) Ilf and Petrov Meet Ma and Pa Kettle would be a classic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• There is a tag following a statement that there are fewer dinosaur fossils after the K-T event. Or at least in rocks found higher in the rock layers, since we all know that that evolutionist radioactive decay is not reliable for dating. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wind

I'm a meteorologist, and don't know your background. I didn't mean my comments to be offensive to you, just like I'm sure you didn't mean your initial comments to be offensive to me. Point out the errors and they will be fixed. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise I did not intend for my comments to be offensive, and apologize if I came across too strong. I have a little bit of background in meteorology and will try to help where possible. It looks like WMC is helping out also. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We just need to make sure if we do more than simply reword some passages which are supported by the current references that new references are found. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, comrade.

This made me laugh, almost as much as this. (Admittedly it was a hollow, somewhat rueful laugh, but I'll take what I can get in these troubled times.)  pablo_hablo. 07:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Mir i druzhba, pal. Arbcom has clearly signaled that WP:NPOV and WP:V as currently written are on their way out. Will be interesting to see what they're replaced with. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

UHI awarded GA status

I've left a critique there, can you comment - please? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have that not-so-fresh feeling...

Yeah, you're right about WP:DENY. Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue... MastCell ^Talk 05:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you brought up sniffing, are you old enough to remember fresh ditto sheets? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember? I keep a stack in my coat pocket for those times when I get a bit stressed. A couple of ditto sheets and 25 mg of propofol, and I'm ready to go edit Clarence Thomas, or watch an ArbCom case. (Yes, I remember them. The good old days, when making copies was actually a form of physical exercise...) MastCell ^Talk 05:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)... Our machine never worked properly. "The spirit was willing, but the flask was weak." I think I may still have some of those lovely purple pages in a storage room somewhere. Antandrus (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Spirit duplicator article covers all the bases, including the Fast Times at Ridgemont High class mass-sniffing (something everybody in my age bracket did every school morning, perhaps accounting for a few things), and particularly finely crafted example of a dittoed newsletter. High Valley Seeking Contributions Toward Purchase of Computer (an "Exidy Sorcereror," in 1978!) and Garage Being Made Into Nature Center. Note also the commentary associated with the image file. Acroterion _(talk) 11:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries

I've no desire to kick anyone. This is an encyclopedia, not a soccer field. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was never much a fan of organized sports. Disorganized sports are much better. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I went to a school where we played "Spartan Madball" at the end of each year. There were three rules: No shoes. No weapons. No motorized vehicles.

That's right; motorized. Horses have been used. Calling off the game after the third ambulance was an unofficial rule. I was the first ambulance my freshman year... -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Endless oil and C13

Hi Boris. I don't know if you have seen this "summary" of a recent Nature Geoscience article. While the Nature article is fairly conservative, Solomon essentially spins it as proof of an abiotic (and hence endless) origin for oil. I was wondering: Is there any reason why abiotically produced hydrocarbons should be depleted in C13? Or, the other way round, is the fact that our exploited hydrocarbon reservoirs are very much depleted in C13 not very strong evidence that abiotic production does not significantly contribute to these reservoirs? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, they've shown it's possible in the laboratory under carefully controlled optimal conditions. From there it's only a small step to conclude that it happens all the time in nature and is in fact the dominant process. Surely you can't dispute that logic.

The stable isotope ratios are indeed very strong evidence that fossil fuels are of biotic origin. Geologists and engineers know a lot about stable isotope ratios in different types of fossil fuels, e.g. here.

I wonder if someone got a bit of wood alcohol in their vodka. Maybe the same batch as this guy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen....

" In the USA where most editors come from there is a vast amount of misinformation, so we have to do this." M. Tony Sideway, sometime time in August, 2009.

It was a cool wet summer In the north-east... the falsifications grew like limpid turnip greens flayed by the winds of mis-information... under the liquid gray skies...

As far as British historians go, at least H.G. Wells and Charles Darwin were honest.

Boris, I've actually been reading Darwin's "Voyage of the H.M.S Beagle". If I make any edits to the Darwin page, would they count as orignal reasearch, because I've read his book? Inquiring minds must Know! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah... this is disorienting. Now as someone whose favorite music includes this and this, I regard being disoriented as a fine and desirable state of mind. But still it would be helpful to provide a more detaled rationale. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Boris, I may have licked too many decals. Somwtimes wikipedia uses you like an ashtray heart. Praise To The Punks! As always, Best Regards. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have a moment, could you read my most recent article Mohammed al Fassi. I am always surprised when I look up a name on Wikipedia, and find a blank space that says, "Write Me." At least I'll know another human being actually read the damn thing, is a bonus. See you 'round! Enduring regards. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Earth's atmosphere

Boris, starting with this edit, you made major changes to Earth's atmosphere. Previously, the text had the layers in the same order as the adjacent picture, and now they are in the reverse order. You also buried the important tropopause, stratopause, and mesopause layers in the text for the other layers. The old structure represented a long standing consensus that many people worked hard on. However, because you put in a lot of work, I want to discuss this with you before I make significant changes. Q Science (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Q, glad to discuss my reasoning but it would be better to do so at the article talk page to improve visibility amongst those interested in the article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

At last some sanity [19]. Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Rule 5, never forget Rule 5. I learned that from the immortal Leninist harvester. Antandrus (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Force is strong with this one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm depressed as hell. I'm sure you're right about everything there. -- What is Rule 6, by the way -- "Don't take any of this crap seriously, or you'll go out of your mind?" Antandrus (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You weren't supposed to see that yet -- it's under very gradual development. Now I have to hunt you down and give you ECT. The only existing copy of the Rules is posted on a bookcase in my office and I don't remember offhand what Rule 6 is, but your version is as good as any. (BTW I do intend to reply to your email.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jet_stream

You might care to join in at Talk:Jet_stream, since this month is do-some-real-work month William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll add it to the list that I use to prioritize. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fishies

This essay is coming in handy right now. Well-put. And I re-read last night an essay I wrote myself a couple years ago, and started laughing out loud; I should try to take my own advice. La Rochefoucauld: "It is easier to be wise for others than for oneself." Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Shoestring radio theatre

I thought this new article might interest you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Donating an automated archiver

Hey Boris, it's me ChyranandChloe. I've added an automated archiver, you talk page is getting really long, and it's getting really close being a problem for older browsers (WP:LIMIT). Nice article, User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration, it's good stuff. :) ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the thought but I'd rather archive in my own way, in my own time. I do appreciate the effort though. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the automated archiver, sorry, didn't get a reply last time so I made some assumptions, #Automated archiver. How's WikiEd working out for you? I think that was my last post before I had to go on Wikibreak. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheerful clueful Harvester input requested

You and your talk page stalkers have sensible things to say. Please see this new RFC on big issues that Casliber has just started. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not revert Clerk actions

As a general rule, do not revert Clerk actions, particularly when conducted under specific ARBCOM direction. Manning (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There are reasons for not explaining actions at times, chiefly due to the Streisand effect. However if you had any familiarity with the topic you reverted, you would be aware of the very clear ARBCOM provisions on this subject. William Connelly certainly was, thankfully, as he reversed your reversion shortly afterwards. Manning (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was about to revert that edit. How on earth am I supposed to know that I'm not supposed to?? No offense, but I had no idea you're a clerk, and no idea you had power outsite of arbcom space. Verbal chat 22:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently we're "just supposed to know," somehow. Sigh. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies - upon re-reading my comments, they came across a LOT more WP:DICK-ish than I ever intended. I am trying to do too much too fast and not taking enough time for basic courtesy, and so for that I apologise. I appreciate your position, and you acted reasonably in light of not knowing my motives. For the record, clerks are authorised to execute the provisions of ARBCOM anywhere in the Pedia. It is rare that this extends to redacting comments, but it is still within our remit. ARBCOM have instructed that no information that potentially outs an editor is permitted. Additionally as this instruction is merely a restatement of established policy, so it is not controversial. Manning (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Let's all go out for a beer. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The apology is appreciated. The fact that ArbCom wants to suppress the well-known fact that the object of the Eastern European Mailing List ArbCom case is (or was when I got it weeks ago) on a public website is not. Such an attempt is futile. That cat is out of the bag. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You should definitely leave some kind of "official arbcom business" edit summary, otherwise, per community norms, you'll just be reverted. Luckily for us both my initial response to SBHB was destroyed by an (edit conflict) :) 2x ec: Beer? It's way past bedtime :s (ec*3 please stop, I can't handle all this conflict) Verbal chat 22:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

re the EC.... perhaps - its a hard call to make. Stephan Schulz - this is not about "suppression" of information. This is about respecting the rights of Wikipedia editors to not be outed. Whatever is known publicly is known. But all editors on WP have rights, and as far as possible those rights will be protected. Manning (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say one among those rights is the right to be informed of what happens in the community. I don't think that removing mere mentioning of a pointer to a website is within the remit of ArbCom. What's next, pointers to pointers? Pointers to pointers to pointers? And I certainly think that it is entirely unacceptably to misrepresent what I wrote. If you think you need to redact it, I certainly expect that redaction to be clearly marked. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I've read your argument and find it fair enough. Thanks for your input and I shall act accordingly in future.Manning (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still available. I just downloaded it. -Atmoz (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you AfD the relevant article. -Atmoz (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, while I openly concede that I have blundered in my handling of this, the simple principle remains. In respect to all editors, any information on Wikipedia that directly links the EEML archive and some means of directly obtaining it is to be removed from Wikipedia as it violates both an ARBCOM directive and the WP:OUTING policy. I am not trying to make a political stunt, merely trying to keep things fair. Sure anyone determined enough to look for this information WILL probably find it, but that doesn't mean that attempts should not be made to reduce the contribution of Wikipedia to that front. All of this linking information is under consideration for oversighting anyway. Manning (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Tea weighing station north of Batumi, Russian Empire before 1915 (A tea break can be very refreshing

Perhaps a nice hot cup of tea for everyone, eh, tovaritchs? Beverageingly, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You misspelled tovarishchshch. MastCell ^Talk 03:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Um. While I guessed what M was about, it was unreasonable to expect people in general to guess. Doing things under arbcomm direction is fine; but you have to *tell* people you are doing so. Also, this was all pointless; anyone who cares will find the stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Having a mind

Care to share your tale of why you resigned? Maybe it will make me feel better.—Kww(talk) 01:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the stats page link. That sort of data will guide where I input my time in future. Wish I'd known about it before; my fault, I know. ► RATEL ◄ 06:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Proper Grammar, please!

It's, of course, simplificitate! Won't anybody think of the children? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Could you explain how you feel I've "baited" WMC? I simply restored comments he had removed from an article talkpage, with an explanatory note in my edit summary. He removed them again, and I restored them, asking him at his talkpage why he was removing them. How have I "baited" him? I'm seriously curious about this, because I've seen people baited on this site, and I have no use for that type of behavior. If I've done something during this minor dustup that leaves you with the view that I'm in some way baiting him, I'd really like to know what it was. UA 00:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what's happening. Basically you and I think on entirely different planes. Anyone like myself who hangs out around the global warming-related articles sees the very worst that Wikipedia has to offer (yes, including megadoses of feigned incomprehension). I don't think you're doing this deliberately, but you and I think and communicate in such incompatible ways that there's not likely to be much gained by discussion. I'll just drop it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is most likely very true. I came to the Paltride article through the BLP concerns raised. As I've noted in other places, in a general (and real-world) sense, I agree with your side of this discussion. I think global warming is real, and that it's largely man-made. My concerns are purely BLP, as I'm a pretty "strict constructionist" in that regard. I have, I think, almost wholly ignored GW-related articles during my time here, so I don't know a lot of the backstory. I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot. UA 00:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably more of a "strict constructionist" on BLPs than you. If I had my way articles on marginally-notable individuals such as Paltridge wouldn't even exist. Alas, this is a minority view. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

On this, we agree completely. Paltridge is definitely on the margins of notability. UA 01:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Guide to arbitration

Hey Boris, just wanted to thank you for your very astute thumbnail guide to arbitration. I wish I'd read it before getting myself involved, even peripherally, in the Abd/WMC arbitration, although from your comments it sounds like that arbitration is what informed your understanding of the process. At any rate, I think you've got it right. Woonpton (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That was also my first ArbCom case and I'd agree with 90% of what you write. I am following another case at the moment and it seems the clerks are much stricter about irrelevant discussions this time. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 04:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that they're cracking down on nonsense. This reminds me of another point that I've wanted to add to the guide; i.e., while arbcom will not admit they were wrong, they may silently heed criticism by attempting not to repeat previous mistakes. I just haven't quite figured out the right wording. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Specks and Planks

If you are implying that I called someone "stupid", or removed others' good faith talk page comments, or told someone "read the f*ck*ng diff", please point it out so that I may correct it.

What you don't seem to realize, Boris, is that those messages to WMC are a courtesy, because I already have more than enough evidence to escalate this. I like what WMC does here (I admire his recent effort to detangle the mess at SoL), but this aggressive behavior towards people who disagree with him on GW pages is not acceptable. I want him to stop it on his own and I encourage you (someone he obviously respects) to counsel him when he does something obviously out-of-bounds. ATren (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Secret ballot

Hi there. I just wanted to make a quick point in relation to your comment here. I'm not particularly trying to influence your decision; my role in this process is largely clearing up misunderstandings in relation to SecurePoll. You point out that 'secret' information has a history of being leaked from supposedly secure areas such as ArbCom, which is true; the "if two people know it it's not a secret" mantra applies. But with SecurePoll, no one knows who voted where, not the voters, not the counters, not the scrutineers. The software tracks votes internally; scrutineers can strike votes that are obviously fraudulent, but they can't see which way the vote they're striking was cast. Then at the end they hit the "tally" button and the final results are published: now they can see exactly how many votes were cast for each candidate, but not who cast them. So not even the scrutineers can see the complete picture. The only people who could see the whole picture are the WMF sysadmins, who could (if they could be bothered) read the results straight out of the database tables; but they can essentially do anything on WMF, distrusting them just leads to madness because you can't trust anything :D.

Hope this clarifies a bit. I think I'm going to try writing a better documentation at mw:Help:Extension:SecurePoll, so you might be able to get more details there at some point. Happy editing! Happy‑melon 11:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the concise explanation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

sw17?

I'm not sure what that means. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the Seventeenth Commandment in the Bible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It didn't totally look right to me either. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know there were 17, but found out the 11th is "Don't get caught..." --Skyemoor (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominations

Quick, put your name in the ring. There's still time to go right after Kmweber. MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please refactor your comment or request I do so

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atmoz&diff=prev&oldid=326480778

As always, I'm happy to refactor my comments. I've certainly not meant take "a haughty attitude" or "make Atmoz eat crow." What I am doing is trying to work with two editors that tend to incivility and disruption. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Little blossoms are not out yet,

But hark! there rings the recess bell;

Let us join in the coming struggle of the working class to free itself from the decadent bourgeois influences who would strive against their liberation from exploitative capitalism,

And go get drunk, alone, in our hotel.

Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I wasted your time here. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wind editing comments...really?

Do we need to go through this again? You make edits which appear to reword what was already there, then place a comment like "how did this article ever pass FA?" While I'm glad you're back to improving the article, since you continue to degrade it within making specific comments about what is so terribly wrong about it, please try to contribute in a less degrading manner to your fellow editors. Thank you. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Since someone else brought it up... how did this thing ever pass FA??? The obvious answer is that FAC is about producing FAs, not about producing quality content. -Atmoz (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied at article talk. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, dynamic meteorology was not my strong suit in college. Synoptic meteorology was, which comes in quite handy at work. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I never caught on to forecasting. But together -- we can rule the world! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehehehehe...very good. If you'd like, I could post a message when another met article comes up for FAC. I usually try one a year. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What was that about?

On the ArbCom RFC, you said, "Arbitrators should have a feel for what the place is like for people who, you know, actually work on articles."

I can't tell if that was a dig at me or Coren -- whether you're saying I shouldn't vote, or Coren shouldn't be an arbitrator, or both -- but either way it sounds rather inappropriately judgemental. If you didn't mean either of those, I suggest you should reword it, because that's how it sounds. rspεεr (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as a dig at anyone -- it meant what it said. Arbitrators should have a feel for what the place is like for people who work on articles. Seems plain enough. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Watts

Watts was mentioned in one of the SEPP's contemporaneous news releases. That seems sufficient evidence, at a minimum by Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. People can make their own determination if they think that the cited source is insufficiently reliable. --The Cunctator (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Pajamas media

Regarding this edit, Pajamas Media is a perfectly legitimate source despite its name. I'm not necessarily going to put it back (I wanted to add a multiplicity of sources to combat a WP:WEIGHT argument) but it's not as if it's just some random blog. Oren0 (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets see:

• Self published
• No evidence of editorial control
• Mostly blogs and commentary (ie. opinion)
• Not written by experts

Hmmm - and just what makes it a "perfectly legitimate source"? (that it has a wiki page?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to Oren0 for not being clearer about my reasoning. It wasn't the name; I know who they are. Granted they're a notch above something really ghastly like prisonplanet.com but the article has enough mainstream reliable sources that we don't need to reach down. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Booker

Hi, I noticed that in January 1 you tagged the article on Christopher Booker with {{disputed}}. Please read the article as it stands at present and see if your criticism, "reads like an advert for the person, lots of puffery etc" still applies. I note that since then a considerable amount of material about Booker's unorthodox scientific opinions and his errors of fact on various scientific matters has now been added. [20]

I have also encountered one editor who cites your tagging as justification for ignoring the copious material in that article which demonstrates Booker's lack of authority on matters of science.[21]

I'd be interested on your opinion on what further now needs to be done to improve the accuracy of this article and its compliance with Wikipedia's policies. --TS 21:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Submarines

What's with the aquatic stuff then? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

POV tag removal

Please do not disruptively remove information from articles [22] as you did here . Wikipedia is not censored, and tags are not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed tag. The article talk page is full of NPOV disputes. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't seriously think that WP:NOTCENSORED applies to the removal of dispute tags, right? MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

LOSSTMSAOGW

Really? I know the whole area is a bit of a mess right now, but judicious application of the WP:DUE-hammer might be more productive. I dunno - some way to get away from trying to argue data and interpretation in the articles and put everything in proper scientific context with our coverage strictly limited by what actual RSes say. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The legal profession

Like most physicians, I have nothing but the deepest respect for the legal profession. But I do sometimes wonder how many lawyers is too many on ArbCom. I got the sense you were alluding to a similar question in your voting guide. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the slate is a fair sight better than when I last checked back in mid-November - between this, User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2009, and my own careful analysis I might actually be able to vote for a full roster. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I see six, or even four, names I'm really excited about - which is a big difference from last year, where there was a surplus. But I'm always amazed that anyone is crazy enough to put forth their name. MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least three of them are out immediately and I still need to read at least a sampling of the questions, but that will have to wait until I watch the new Robot Chicken Star Wars special. Priorities, you know. Also, I am really curious to see what WMC would be like on the Committee, and with secret voting there is no reverse pile on effect of people refraining from voting for people in danger of passing. Serve him right for all the text I waded through at his case the other month. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly have no real interest in reading the question-and-answer. If I'm going to vote for someone, then I need to already know - from actions, not words - where someone stands on the things I care about. I guess I might see something in the answers that would disqualify someone - in the same way that med-school interviews are intended mainly to weed out people with obviously abnormal psychopathology - but I'm not going to be convinced by someone's answers to support them if I'm not already 99% of the way there. Besides, Elonka's RfA and subsequent recall drove home that one would have to be a complete fool to place any value on anything someone says to get elected, and I was already fooled once... so you know the saying. MastCell ^Talk 20:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

^^^ What he said. Also, if you think that it's very important to get a set of 3 or 4 people on the comittee, your vote has more impact if you just vote for them and against everyone else, same if you think it's dramatically important to keep someone off - a vote against them and for everyone else has more impact. You don't need to like 8 candidates. Hipocrite (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." ? -Atmoz (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a real shame we can't recall the entire committee in one go. The current lot have been an atrocious failure - a complete refresh is what's really needed here. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Aw, they're not bad. Right now the good ones far, far outweigh the bad ones. I can't even think of one I'd want to recall (well, maybe just one) - and that's a huge improvement over, say, early 2008. There have been a couple of unfortunate resignations - Kirill and Casliber - but Kirill, at least, will hopefully be re-elected. I think we've just made the job description too demanding - no human being can possibly fulfill all of our expectations consistently over the course of 2 to 3 years. MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I give up; where is your voter guide, Boris? BTW, my son, who has been a Firesign Theater buff since childhood, is impressed with your username, which he says is the most obscure Firesign Theater reference he's ever seen. Woonpton (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No voter guide this year. I'm buried in real-life stuff and don't have time to do it properly. And yes, it's a very obscure TFT reference; surprised anyone else ever heard of it. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

NPR just did a story on how to avoid jury duty (I think they were actually interviewing someone who wrote a book about jury duty, but where is the fun in that?) - maybe we should move to a compulsory service model for ArbCom. For each case, uninvolved editors would pile on to nominate their least favorite POV-warriors to have to deal with that case instead of their usual battles. The Troubles editors would adjudicate for the Israel/Palestine editors would adjudicate for the pseudoscience editors would adjudicate for the Ayn Rand editors would adjudicate for the Eastern Europe editors ... and while they are busy with that the rest of us could sneak in and post an encyclopedia behind their backs. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You have mail

Please check your e-mail. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom RFC

Hi, I'm posting to you because I too am concerned about the way the ArbCom RFC was closed. I am concerned that the decision to move to a system of secret ballot seems to have been a "done deal" and one that lacked consensus.

I've prepared an RFC (another one!) the issue. I haven't publicised it yet but would greatly appreciate your opinion about it. Is it be worthwhile opening up and RFC on the question of the decision to the community? Do you have any advice on the design of such an RFC? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom will never go back on a decision soon after making it. They might open it up for changes next year but this year is a done deal, period. More here. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Elonka to delete the page. It is more sensible to wait until after the election and actually use an RFC to gaguge how folk feel about a secret ballot after they have had a chance to use it. If we go for it them ... well, at least we will be better informed. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

New sig

Given your new sig, I thought I would offer you condolences on your untimely demise. MastCell ^Talk 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, whaddayaknow... Maybe the other Arthur Resnick got his inspiration from that one. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I made a joke at your expense

This was a tiny little joke; however, I pray you find humor in it, and the true intention to serve a higher purpose then either of us. Sincerely, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Just wanted to say thanks for your thoughtful reply to my post at the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident talk page. (No need to reply to this post on my talk page, I've added your talk page to my watchlist.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Global cooling revert

Help me out here. What part of "The current pause in higher temperatures are from a 1998 peak significantly higher than the 1970s levels." is tendentious? What is the point of view here that I'm supposedly pushing? Are you attacking HADCRUT in favor of GISS? Here's a link to the graph for the relevant time period for "the current pause". Or are you saying that current temperatures are not significantly higher than the 1970s? I know that the comments give you a limited amount of text to work here so please lay your cae out. TMLutas (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It'd be nice if people didn't intentionally misrepresent data. It'd also be nice if people weren't gullible enough to fall for it. -Atmoz (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It'd be nice Atmoz if you'd go to laying out a case that wasn't entirely ad hom. Still waiting for the case for SBHB's reversion. That's what real editors do, when asked on their talk page why they revert, they give some sort of logical reason consistent with Wikipedia rules and customs. I've no illusion's what's going on, the only surprise is that the pretense of fairness seems to be dropping more than I thought it would at this stage. TMLutas (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak for Boris, obviously, but have you considered the fact that your proposed edit is a) unsourced, b) contradicts prevailing scientific opinion, and c) when pressed, you seem to be leaning on a typepad.com blog/Sarah Palin fansite as a source of scientific truth? Those are all policy-based reasons why someone might have reverted your edit. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

MastCell is correct on the process side. On the science side a 10-year data series is irrelevant to climate. And there's a word for choosing a starting point to coincide with a strong anomaly having a well-known cause (actually two words, but who's counting). There are further arguments against but piling on is unnecessary. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, unsourced but you're supposed to tag that if you've a problem with it, not just revert so why the rush to get rid of it entirely? The idea is to work to improve text, not just nuke what isn't perfect. That's the problem that I had with WMC's original revert, it gave nothing to work with and since he's been personally dishonest with me on edits in the past, I wasn't about to get into the details of this edit with him if he's decided to be unreasonable, again. To further the point, there's a decent BBC article that I believe provides adequate RS sourcing What happened to global warming?.

The idea that HADCRUT temperature series are not consistent with prevailing scientific opinion is rather strange to me. Do tell me more. I picked the graph based on the fact that it looked good, nothing to do with Palin. It isn't as if that graph can't be found elsewhere. I don't get paid to edit wikipedia so I do confess to using google images and getting quick links that way. I don't check to see if it's on any blacklists. That seems to be an AGW team habit based on my read of some of the CRUTape letters.

Now I'm much more sympathetic to the idea that timespans shorter than x are not significant for climate but if you're going to take that position, you're not being fair or constructive if you don't lay out what's a reasonable time period to call significant. If we had a discussion (perhaps in global cooling talk?) that achieved consensus for what timespan to consider significant, what datasets are reasonable to use, you know, basic stuff, we could have a reasonable set of ground rules that would reduce discord on this page and perhaps related ones.

Let me start off. I think that a decade is plenty of time for a trend to be noted as climate. 2 years ago, I thought 9 years was plenty but discussion at that time led me to believe that 10 years (taking the HADCRUT peak of 1998) would be considered more acceptable so I gave in at that point. So here we are two years later and I'm finding the same arguments with a different cast of accounts making them just minor changes really. I think that any of the major data sets are acceptable and where they disagree (as HADCRUT and GISSTEMP do) it's legitimate to use either, making clear which data set is being referenced.

So a quick recap, I've gotten dismissive no argument (WMC), ad hom, no argument (Atmoz), a legitimate point on sourcing (MastCell) but endorsing unreasonable action (reverting instead of fact tagging), a questionable attack on using HADCRUT (still waiting for the explanation on that one) and a bald assertion that 10 years is too short for climate without a reasonable statement of what is long enough (SBHB). Tossing off insults on quick reverts and ill thought through critiques is what I see. I think that it can get better than that. TMLutas (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Michaels

Dear Comrade Boris! The imperialists at Cato claim that Patrick Michaels is among the friends of the proletariat and has been a contributing author to the 2007 IPCC AR4 [23]. However, that work only mentions him as a reviewer. Since you have the ear of the politburo, do you have any idea if this is real or just really preposterous CV bolstering? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Official Party rosters of people's servants for latest Seven Year Plan being here and here and here. Capitalist propagandists maybe succeed with weak of zeal, cannot fool Boris. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently some imperialist stooge has sabotaged the Interpipes - the contributors list of WG3 will not open on my lowly peoples MacBook Pro(letariat). I take your word for it.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Making note of your Party affiliation, I ask with curiousity: is there not an equivalent within the Great Satan? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You betcha. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comment in hacking article

Palin has managed an undergraduate degree. Would you mind replacing the third item in your list with, say, "George W. Bush receiving a nobel peace prize"? Andjam (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Cotton

Re [24]. Maybe. Author of "Huamn impacts on weather and climate"? But you may be more familiar with his actual work. How inclusive-stretchy do you see that list being? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

In reverting my edit on the FOI stuff at the CRU hack article, you state in the edit summary: rv - text is not in cited reference. I just checked it, and it's all there in the two footnotes. Did I miss something? If so, please explain on the talk page for the article. If not, please revert yourself. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A sea of red?

As a loyal member of the cabal I look upwards towards comrade Boris to supply correct doctrine but am greeted by a sea of red! Has the revolution truely come? William M. Connolley (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sea of red good thing! Boris making heroic efforts for exceed production quota to higher glory of Motherland, exhort many youth to correct thinking. Little time for evaluate petty bourgeois power struggles. Boris unhappy many provocateurs and traitors seeking power over workers, find only one or two worthy to lead people's struggle. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, production quota good thing! But Heroic Stoat living on past glory. Who need boring old Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Medieval Warm Period

Short Brigade Harvester Boris, please quit edits such as your recent one saying "We are on the road to nowhere..." - it is really quite pointless behavior and contributes nothing to the discussion. Wejer (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I wrote "We're on the road to nowhere..." Please be more careful not to misquote others. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to laugh out loud at your childish behavior... Wejer (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to bring a smile to your face. BTW there are some good cartoons here.[25] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your Note

No problem. And I understand completely what can happen before the caffine really kicks in.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Brittainia/Rameses

Per your post at User talk:Brittainia - do you have a link handy that would justify blocking whichever of these is not the main account? They have definitely both been active in the same topicsphere; if there is good evidence linking the accounts, WP:SOCK has been violated. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Here you go: [26] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest blocking both accounts. It's not like an established, general-purpose encyclopedic contributor who happened to abuse a bad-hand account. It's more like an agenda account which, on top of abusing this site as a venue for advocacy, also happens to be sockpuppeting. My 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 23:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Per previous blocks for the same behavior and KDP's link, I just went indef on both. Third account from the SPI has not edited in a couple months, but I will try to remember to keep an eye on it. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems a lot happened while I was out shopping. I thought the "daughter" (don't remember the account name) had already been blocked. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Public opinion on climate change

I have nominated Public opinion on climate change, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public opinion on climate change. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. jheiv (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

GW

Got a topic about GW research, your opinion would be appreciated, prof. Last two comments of this section, it's about readding a paragraph of Pre-human climate variations to GW. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I will reply there later. (It's turned into silly season on the GW articles following the CRU brouhaha, plus I have a mountain of grading to finish.) Sneak preview: the eccentricity and rock weathering stuff is interesting but not directly relevant -- the time scale is waaaaaaay too long. The topic is complicated enough without bringing in other things that are only tangential to the current warming. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good thanks. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom election

FYI - there's a request for feedback on the ArbCom election. No question about the choice of switching using a secret ballot, but I dropped a line on the talk page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Boise keep swinging

Have you met User:RandyInBoiseIdaho?   pablo_hablo. 10:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's actually funny ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's even funnier if you know the creator of the account... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that spoiled it a bit for me... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see someone noticed. I haven't had any time to expand it and have been thinking it was a rather ill conceived idea at this point given the recent flap over the "outing" of Randy. Should I ask to have it all deleted, do you think, or continue as I had planned to flesh it out like a proper account. You assistance in the project would be most welcome. --GoRight (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help me expand my thesis, "The Missing Story of the Peloponnesian War", on my main page? I tried to add it to the main article but it was reverted. I have photographs and everything. --RandyInBoise (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this a sensitive topic that you wish not to be discussed?

[27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. If so let me know and I shall not speak of it and shall expunge such material from my talk page. --GoRight (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A question about your response -apparently to me, but perhaps not

I'm puzzled by your response to my post: here It sounds like you are arguing the editorial doesn't belong in the article. Which is what I said. If that was your point, then we agree. Were you really arguing that an editorial talking specifically about the CRU Incident article should be hidden from editors working on this article? If that was your point, then we disagree.--SPhilbrickT 22:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a general comment about how far we should go in accommodating those who accuse Wikipedia of not being neutral, not a response to anything specific you wrote. Probably I should refrain from general pontifications like that since it can be confusing (as in this case). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

'Tis the season of giving

		The Socratic Barnstar
		To Short Brigade Harvester Boris, for his extreme fairness, close attention to detail, and strong principles in presenting science on Wikipedia, Awickert (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded (and merry christmas to both of ya' (and lurkers)) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Best of the season to both of you from us here in the frozen plains. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Kinda frozen here as well - we've had the first white christmas since 1995 (iirc) [kinda ironic since we're in the "cold north"] But i guess that it gets really cold with an inland climate. Whats the temperature in those parts (in rational celsius please :-). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A few hours north of Boris it's a nasty 3 degrees and snowing hard. Well, slushing really: no nice snow for us. And the bottom of the slush layer is molten (I think this is the right word, though it seems more appropriate for lava), so when it goes back into the freeze (which it is expected to do for the coming week), our streets will be ice rinks. I'm just hoping for a few inches of nice snow for skiing on top of this: I'm going to get myself new skate-skis as an after-Christmas present :). Awickert (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Mixed feelings, since the Socratic Barnstar reminds me of Martinphi (its creator), but certainly well-deserved in this case. Merry Christmas. MastCell ^Talk 02:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll happily change it to the original; I'm ignorant of wiki-history, Awickert (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The global warming skirmishes

• Hey, I see you rmvd text from the Tim Ball article. I hadn't seen your name prominently in these skirmishes previously, though it's true that I am busy and only check in from time to time.
• Why did you rmv the text? Looks reasonable to me. • Ling.Nut 05:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Matters regarding a specific article should be discussed not on user talk pages but on the article talk page in question, so that other interested editors can contribute to the discussion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Define "contribute". I think you should instead say "core dump their various biases, and seal their ears to the voice of anyone who disagrees." But whatever. I'll play along. • Ling.Nut 05:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I was confused! I thought you rmv'd the text; instead you restored it. My bad. I think we need to find some way to resolve this question of "when is a scientist no longer a scientist." • Ling.Nut 05:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Forcing

SBHB, re. this edit, since you're the expert, maybe you can assist in presenting a simple definition consistent with the section title ("Radiative forcing"). Surely it's possible to reconcile for the reader the difference between net irradiance at the tropopause (which presumes external forces as well as internal forces), and external forcing per se? I'd try it, but you're among the experts here. The SUV lover, amid his/her ad homs and various gratuitous points, has a reasonable point in this instance, IMO. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for noting my point. I generally deplore ad homs, my apologies. See my other points below. I used to be a teacher, indeed I still teach, and it is important to give people reasons rather than stuff them full of facts. I love SUV's (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion to the article talk page. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(addendum) I've retitled the section and rejiggered the text a bit to try and clarify. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

External forcing

This refers. It would be useful to explain this term better (I have a comment further up the talk page). Does it refer to any process external to the climate? Including thought processes? Or to processes that have some effect on the climate. Also it is highly confusing to have a section titled 'radiative forcing' when it begins with a (bad) definition of external forcing. My point is a logical one only. Also, do you agree with my comments on the GW talk page where I argue for more explanation of the reasons scientists believe in GW. Also a better definition of GW. Is it (a) the fact that instrument temperatures are on average higher than a century ago (b) a process that underlies that fact (c) the hypothesis that the process has an anthropogenic cause? These are all different things. (a) could be true because of random fluctuations (b) could be true if the process were a natural one. Again, my points are only logical and definitional ones, I have no view on the science. I love SUV's (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please refrain from statements like "struck a nerve", as these can be perceived by overly-literal ruleslawyers to be a threat of violence. You may wish to read WP:NPA and familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL-- okay, that joke's run its course. Yeah, I'm sure a blunt assessment of the truth can sorta take the wind out of your sails when you're trying to waste people's time on a collaborative project. Randy in Boise sez: it's much more effective to run around in barely-related circles on User:Talk until everybody gets tired and moves on. Remember, kids, Big $cience is a lie funded by the overwhelmingly deep pockets of professional academics like my high school Earth Sciences teacher, and exists only to run hardworking multi-national industrialists into financial ruin, etc etc, there was two feet of snow last week how is that global "warming" blah blah yadda yadda. I try not to involve myself in other users' User Talk affairs, but even I have my breaking point. Keep the good work and your chin up, stay warm (groan) in 2010! Badger Drink (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes sir. Brave acts can be ruined by accidents. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Que sera sera. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Darn it, now I've got that tune running through my head.

Suspect the hot air rising from from that arb case will only make global climate change worse. Antandrus (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hah, I wondered if anyone would twig to that. Actually I was thinking about the Mary Hopkin version; Doris Day is a better singer but for some reason I've always been intrigued with Mary Hopkin's voice. I'm attracted to a lot of performers who have interesting (to me) voices even if they aren't technically great singers.

As for the matter at hand, my views are here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's excellent, accurate, and very practical. It needs to be more widely linked. Antandrus (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating case. I'm listed, but apparently I'm not worthy of notification. And the criterion for being listed is edit count? Hmm. So the prior steps in dispute resolution must have been what - Tedder asking people to edit less frequently? Interesting guide to arbitration, btw. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I notice Boris is now listed twice... -Atmoz (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow - what sort of time frame is Tedder using? Waiting to see Uncle Ed, Cortonin and JonGwynne added as well. Guettarda (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The way Tedder has gone about this whole thing is just weird. It looks to have had as much thought put into it as my deciding whether to have ranch or italian dressing with tonight's salad. Something doesn't smell quite right. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he means well. He knows that things are bad and is just trying to take action to fix them. But he is badly in need of having a game plan I am afraid. He lacks any sort of statement of what the actual dispute is. He is just listing people who edit GW articles. Interestingly, the Arbs are actually weighing in with some level of "support?" --GoRight (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, SirFozzie has. Since my interactions with him have been considerably less collegial than my interactions with you, I'm curious as to whether he will actually participate. I'd guess "yes", but that would be a failure to assume good faith on my part. Guettarda (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit unsettled at SF being elected to Arbcom. They take on too many cases already without SF being in the mix. My comments here still apply. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Weird" is one way of phrasing it. "Like a brand new grad student who has never heard of research design" is another. Someone should explain to him that he needs to come up with your research question before he starts collecting data. Guettarda (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The cynical side of me strongly suspects the case was filed at the instigation of a third party. (I have some ideas who it may have been.) This would help explain Tedder's remarkably slipshod approach: since it wasn't his idea and he really didn't know the background, he just threw something together. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Don't know the underlying politics and entanglements. Barely know who Tedder is at all. Guettarda (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A specific request

I've added a specific request you might be interested in. It helps the attending admin out a bit.--Rockfang (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Way was the article deleted?

What's wrong whit the article "What is the Greenhouse Effect..." in Greenhouse effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicco3 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved to bottom so you will see it :-) also removed the "essay" that Chico3 added this morning. Enjoy, Vsmith (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

All too appropriate for humor...

"Nation's Experts Give Up — 'From Now On, You're On Your Own,' Say Experts". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent

Although you did forget to cite your source! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You should have tagged it then. (Silly proposals deserve silly answers, which deserve silly followups.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

See, I was right ...

All you have to do is list the names and say "the usual". Please add User:Oski Jr to your list next time. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should Oski Jr be added? Doesn't look like a scibaby sock to me. Unless of course you are trying to generate a false positive?

As for "the usual", there isn't really that much that can be said, especially not when we do not want to "tip off" the sockmaster about the signs that reveal him/her. Btw. i mailed Thatcher a small list of things that reveal the socks to me, during the case that you were complaining about. Try assuming good faith here :) If you are interested, then it is not that hard to see the patterns if you look at the ones that i add. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I can understand patterns. But some of those accounts were put up with only one edit to their contribs and that was a POV template. Is Scibaby the only one to put up POV templates? I don't mind you guys trying to keep Scibaby in check I just don't want to see innocent people turned into collateral damage despite your best intentions. --GoRight (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Trust me :) [or rather check yourself, and if you want to discuss whether the patterns you find match mine - then mail me, do not write it here] There is a pattern even in the one-edit sockets, there is in fact at least 2-4 matching patterns on each that i've reported... Why else do you think i that most of those i report are matched as scibaby socks? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Why should Oski Jr be added?" - Because he is an obvious sock but I'll never be able to get a checkuser run on the account by listing him and saying, the usual. --GoRight (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't get a response in any case then, from what i've seen in SPI cases. They run a CU to match established patterns - but they do not check wide for matches against other patterns. So you would get back: Not scibaby - but wouldn't know whether it was a sock or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

GR, if you believe that checkuser is being abused you are perfectly within your rights (one might even say you have the responsibility) to file a report at WP:AUSC. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I did just about the time I stopped posting at the SPI report. I got a reply that I probably wouldn't hear anything back until after the holidays. --GoRight (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

KITTY!

Just wanted to say I'm in LUVVVV with the kitty cat on your user page. Such a silly, pretty kitty! :) Nothughthomas (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sleeper sock?

Does Jpat34721 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) look like a sleeper sock to you? This account lying dormant for nearly 3 years and then turning up to push POV on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident sets off my BS detectors, frankly. What do you think? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit history from 3 years ago is interesting - apart from 5 edits the Social contract and its talk page, the editor had only edited NSA warrantless surveillance controversy and its talk page. Of course there could be an innocent explanation. Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest throwing it in with the next batch of Scibaby socks to see what the score is. It looks very, very fishy to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ad hominem attacks like this are unhelpful. If you have a problem with my edits or suggestions man up and debate it openly. To your point, such as it is, I was actively involved in the editing of NSA warrantless surveillance controversy and in fact ended up writing a large portion of it. The POV issues that prompted that activity were similar to what is occurring here, namely people trying to use WP to spin a point of view. My contributions in that article were well received by the majority whose interests align with mine, namely a desire to see the WP experiment work and develop content that meets encyclopedic standards. This current article doesn't come close. It is poorly written, clearly not POV neutral and unfocused. The article should not be a proxy for fighting the climate change wars. All the he-said/she-said stuff should be stripped out as there is a point to every counterpoint to every point ad infinitum. Let the emails speak for themselves. Include the rebuttals from the authors involved and call it done.Jpat34721 (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

global warming faq F22 needs to be talked out

FAQs are supposed to be talked out on the parent talk page prior to editing and are supposed to be the blandest of consensus based stuff. F22 as you wrote it should be going through talk, especially because I think there is a very good case to be made that it is wrong. I templated F22 with NPOV but Guettarda removed it as inappropriate for a page in talk space so this may be the first you've heard of this. There is an administrator that is monitoring the situation, 2/0. TMLutas (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global warming, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you never read WP:DNTTR? Talk to people, don't template them!!! :) Guettarda (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

POCC and discussion

I hope I did a good job on this one,[32] I'm trying explain think this through like my political science books and prof. Read through it twice. Anyways it's being discussed if you want to join in.[33]

BTW I like "there has been an increase in the proportion of Americans who believe that scientists believe" better than "agree", because the poll was asking whether people believed that "most scientists believe that global warming is occurring" not agree.[34] Wordings important, especially for Gallup, because if you ask people if "scientists agree", people will think of one or two cases where they've seen disagreement and they'd report whether there's dissent rather than whether there's a considerable opposition to the consensus. It's a nuance, I know, but I got hit quite a few times on before. Thanks on the prose though. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to smooth out "believe that scientists believe" which (I believe) falls oddly on the ear. Overall the article is progressing well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. I changed it to "who agree that most scientists believe global warming is occurring." Anyways, if your interested, polls are starting to come out to measure Climategate: "This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely."[35] Well that's the news. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Since the science is against them the contrarians are using the same as tactic as the creationists, and it's working. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole "I'm skeptical of x, but all scientists should be skeptics" language comes up both here and from the IDists. Same sort of "I'm not a scientist, but I'm doing your job better than you" implication. Denialism's denialism, when it comes down to it. Guettarda (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Hey Boris, got a question. First paragraph of "Science" says "[...]natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward." Shouldn't "warming" be variability? There was some discussion on GW, WMC replied. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: Hello, my name is The Wordsmith; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-08/Global Warming

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Stick around.

[36]. Hey, Boris, that was brilliant. Stick around! Would you be interested in actual solutions to this mess instead of the rock 'em, sock 'em, block 'em approach? I might be able to invite you to participate, off-wiki. Your call, no obligation, etc. And, of course, the mediation above might help. All things work together for those who wait. --Abd (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Consternation and Hilarity

Consternation yes. I'm less sure about the Hilarity William M. Connolley (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

C'mon, you have to admit that many of these folks have descended to unwitting self-parody. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, taht bit is funny. ATren, though, is sad William M. Connolley (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletions from GW talk page

Please do not delete civil on-topic material from the GW talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

From WP:BAN: A banned user who evades a ban, may have all of their edits reverted without question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked in vain for Amir Tashekian on Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users and eventually discovered that this user has been blocked for sock-puppetry. Perhaps an edit summary would have helped. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"In short you don't have to respect liars and disruptors, you just have to pretend to."

Your advice is quite respectable. ATren (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind words. You don't know how much that means to me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Academic witticisms

How dare you introduce a term like lumbago while I'm still trying to sort out omphaloskepsis v. omphaloskeptic. And don't get me started about my problems with Roman v. mannerist v. 18th Century French v. postmodern architecture. It's all one big muddle! We need order, at least some kind of brace, to keep things standing upright and straight. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk page excess

Hi, I work the BLPN recently and I wanted to comment as a neutral but I didn't want to disturb any other comments there so I hope you don't mind I will post my opinion, supported by some experience and some policy, feel free to delete it after you have read it and also to do the opposite, it is simply my good faith comment.

Its me putting on my uninvolved hat, if you edit the whole wikipedia that comment is lightweight, my first step would be to no index the talk page, thus removing the infringements from the www search engines, second, have a quiet word, hey please don't post stuff like that as it is close to the knuckle, from editing around the wiki touching or deleting another editors comment is only to be done in very serious situation, the comment is not correct but its hardly a libel, if you searched for a similar comment on the world wide web you would find one in five seconds, so it has all been said a hundred times, that said we should take that editor and ask him, please take care with you comments as they are controversial and if you can't cite them to a reliable source then you shouldn't say them on the talkpage, Roman Polanski was awful...the whole trial was played out on the talkpage, but we archived it as and when we could, if they were not looking, personally I would recommend this position , the wheels will not drop off. Of course, if he didn't listen and began a pattern of repeating similar behavior, then I would recommend reporting him. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, but man, that was one heck of a long sentence... ;-) If I understand the gist of what you're saying the best approach is to warn the editor and ask him not to do that again. I did so, and he responded that his comment was not in any way inappropriate. So we have a fundamental disagreement as to whether calling people "criminals" absent a conviction (or even an arrest or trial) is appropriate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the Information Commissioner seems to see it as his right to issue statements implying just that, by giving out press statements that it is a criminal offence and the accused is guilty, but won't be charged. Pretty horrifying behaviour. However, his office has been careful to name an organisation as the accused, and hasn't specifically called anyone a criminal. The talk page comments were disruptive and out of line, as you stated at the time. . . dave souza, talk 07:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Copying "civility" comments elsewhere?

Any objections to my copying our "civility" discussion (which was deleted by WMC as "unhelpful) to a collapsed copy on my talk page? Good rhetoric should never go to waste. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind so long as all the others in the thread also consent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There's only three of us. :-) ... I've asked the other person, too. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 23:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of our noticeboards suck

To your recent comment at the WP:BLPN, I just wanted to say that most of our noticeboards suck. For the most part, I don't think editors want to get involved in other editors conflicts. It's just too time-consuming and frustrating. The WP:RSN seems to be the only one that does a decent job. Maybe WP:ELN, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, getting a third opinion generally doesn't work. In my experience both noticeboard reports and RFCs usually end up with the same people as before making the same arguments. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Who has the time and patience to get involved? WP:RSN works, for the most part, because the issues there are usually pretty simple. Is the New York Times a reliable source? Yes, duh. Is some guy's personal website a reliable source? Nope. Even WP:RSN can be frustrating at times. I mean, who in their right mind would want to jump into the middle of that Slashdot thread?

But issues on NPOV, especially UNDUE can be extremely complicated unless you already know about the subject.

I've thought about doing a RfC for the death threats in the lede, but the only way an uninvolved editor is going to be able to intelligently comment on the matter is if they read many, if not dozens of different articles to get a full perspective on the topic. Who has that amount of time to spare?

BTW, there was a proposal not too long ago about creating separate ArbComs for specific policies. So there would be an BLP ArbCom, a NPOV ArbCom, etc. and each would focus exclusively on that area. Unfortunately, it didn't go anywhere. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob

FYI: due to new and unfounded sockpuppetry and stalking accusations and an interesting BLP discussion, I've begun a section at ANI on Off2riorob, who apparently thinks I am you, or something like that. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WTH? I gather there's some bad blood between you two, though I don't know (or want to know) the details. But that's just weird. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I undid your deletion on ANI. Threads should properly be left to be archived and not deleted so that others can find them if there's a problem in the future. If you want to mark it as done with a comment, then that'd be ideal and everyone else would know that its finished! Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No prob. I was trying to save people unnecessary work now that he's been blocked. How do you do one of those fancy "resolved" things with the green check mark? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Use the Resolved Template, see my third edit (not my first one which I screwed up, not my second one which I used to fix my screw up, but my third which is accurate) to see how I marked this one resolved. Frmatt (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My sanity or lack there of

This is in regards your comment here[37]. I know that people have questioned my intentions but to be honest, I consider myself to be that editor. It appears that a few other editors (Phil, Judith, Wikidemon) are also trying to mediate the dispute but with little luck.

Out of curiosity, are topic bans enforced by the Wiki software or is it on the honor system? Can an editor request to be topic banned himself? I sometimes think I would be better off if someone put me out of my misery. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh. There's no technical means to enforce a topic ban or article ban, though it occasionally has been discussed. Today I finally received a book that I've been looking forward to for a long time, so I have a good reason to stay away from this madhouse. It's always been unpleasant working in the global warming area but I felt like I had a professional responsibility to keep the articles accurate even when people are telling the science oriented editors "If there was a god, you would go to hell, for being dishonest & immoral," saying we are "psychopathic" and so on (these examples just from the past few days, and not among the worst). The way things have been going lately I'm not sure I give a crap any more. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with your book, Boris. BTW, the only reason why I've been arguing on the side of the AGW sceptics lately is because they're the side they needs the help. I'm disappointed that so many other editors have questioned my motives. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I once temporarily topic-banned myself from abortion articles because the atmosphere was not good for me. I've also placed myself on 1RR a few times (though usually without announcing it, to avoid being taken advantage of). Every time, I've been glad I did. MastCell ^Talk 04:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can an editor asked to be blocked? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think this is commonly granted. It's too easy to just create a new account. I do think there is some feature in the software that allows you to lock yourself out for a while (only all or nothing, sorry). But I cannot seem to find it anymore... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't advise this (in case you kill yourself), but you can cut the wire to your circuit breaker :-). If you live in a nice northern-ey climate, I bet you can devise an ingenious system of boxes with differing thermal diffusional length scales to keep the food at a reasonable temperature, and everyone needs less TV! Awickert (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

GoRight suggested to check out WP:SELFBLOCK. That javascript seems useful... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 19:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. That appears to block an editor from editing all of Wikipedia. I can contribute to Wikipedia in other articles. I'm just interested in a topic ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay, well I was surprised such an article even exits. I never thought about self blocking before I read your post. However, sorry it's of no help to you... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 23:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be trivially easy to create a small piece of Javascript code that would prevent you from editing certain pages. You could define the pages in question by the inclusion of the word "climate", or from a hard-coded list, or using a regexp, etc. Basically, you would just intercept the request to edit the page, check it against whatever criteria you want, and then re-route the person or put up an error message if the page is on the "forbidden" list. I'd be happy to take a crack at it, but coding needs to wait until more pressing real-life matters die down a bit... MastCell ^Talk 01:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Captain Beefheart

I have concerns about the way the article is developing. Please join in discussions about the best way forward. Talk:Captain_Beefheart/GA2#Failing. SilkTork *^YES! 08:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have failed the article as it is not neutral. Work needs to be done on making it more rounded, and to take into account the varying views of Beefheart's music. I would be willing to cask my eye over it for neutrality before it is resubmitted for a GA review. SilkTork *^YES! 09:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. Your talkpage is awkward to navigate - it would be helpful to archive it. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 09:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate pattern

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climate pattern, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

I just discovered this new article and on balance I think it comes under the probation so I've added the template to the talk page. As this is very new I'm alerting everybody who has contributed to the article. Obviously I know you're aware of the probation in itself. -- TS 16:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not convinced "climate pattern" is a well-defined term in itself, but the article has potential. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

TGL

I had to say something, because the guy is blatantly lying. I'm not going to give up defending my good name just because it will make everyone else happy. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

By all means please go on defending yourself. But be careful in how you do it. Always use temperate language yourself so that the inappropriate nature of the other person's comments stands out. If both parties sling mud outsiders or admins aren't going to dig back to see who started it. Respond, but always keep your cool so onlookers have no confusion about who's acting badly (i.e., not you). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Global warming good

Global warming is good for Russia. :-) Borock (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit

Bullshit. Show me. First I wasn't helping my case by bunkering up in a bunker, but that obviously didn't help my case. Now I'm not helping my case by duplicating exactly the behavior of the group that won all the previous cases. No, you prove it to me. I want to see some real action to do something. Hipocrite (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, by flying off the handle you're just giving the contrarians an excuse to point to you and other science-oriented editors and say "See? See? I told you what terrible, awful people they are! I tried so hard to work with him but all he did was call names." You're playing right into their hands. Don't give them the satisfaction.

I don't mean to repeat myself, but hell, I'll do it anyway: by staying polite and taking the high road, you throw their misconduct into sharper focus. So this is not Pollyanna stuff, or Jimbo's flowers-and-butterflies "loving harmony" blatherings, but something you need to do in order to survive around this wretched place.

You can't expect overnight results. You might not even get results in a week, or a month, or a few months. And there are some people (coughLarcough) who you'll never reach; they simply have made up their minds that we're the bad guys and won't allow themselves to be confused by objective evidence. But it's better than flying off the handle and giving them diffs to use against you.

Just my inflation-adjusted $0.02. Disagree or ignore as you see fit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree very much. For some reason, many people seem to expect better behavior from constructive and valuable editors than from roadblocks. Moreover, the roadblocks have no investment in Wikipedia, so they are not sanctionable. Good contributions are not flashy, hence they get lost in the mist of time. However, every possible misstep will be brought up again and again and again. It's as in the old phrase: Friends (and good deeds) go away. Enemies accumulate. As long as Wikipedia puts more emphasis on skin-deep civility than on encyclopedic content, the only way to succeed is by out-civilizing the civil POV pushers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Cough. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RE:Scibaby

Sorry about that, just a mistake, I thought it had been closed. Re-listed now, thanks for notifying me. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. You have new messages at Nsaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nsaa (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Boris, I need help

Boris, I need help. What do the error bounds represent in Hansen et al. Figure 1A? That is the NASA graph with the mysterious green bands. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

95% confidence interval owing to spatial sampling error. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How come there are only three error bounds? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

flat earth

Do you really believe this issue is as simple as flat earth? ATren (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps creationism is a better analogy. According to the New York Times anyhow. MastCell ^Talk 05:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Times article seems to be creationist proponents jumping on the recent GW controversy bandwagon. As an analogy it is still weak (though not as weak as flat earth, which I view as absurd).

Flat earth requires a belief in a world-wide conspiracy going back to the days of Columbus and Magellan. This conspiracy would involve literally millions of people, from astronomers to airline pilots to historians to weathermen, all actively participating in the "hoax" that the world is round.

To compare that to those who have a different interpretation of tree rings, or who have differing theories on the dynamics of a huge macroscopic system like planetary climate, is kind of absurd. You may think that skepticism is fringe, but even then there is a huge difference between the GW fringe, which may have a novel interpretation of data, and flat earth fringe, which flat-out denies 500 years of human history.

I see it as more comparable to the Big Bang theory. Big bang is almost universally accepted (AFAIK) but others are still relevant as theories, and should be mentioned. The difference is that big bang doesn't have the strong political overtones of GW, so it's less controversial to include other theories.

But regardless of the science, there is a huge topic that is non-scientific, which needs to be covered because it is notable. My particular focus has been BLPs of skeptics, and I've seen real problems there that have nothing to do with science. Am I a fringe pusher because I fight against the tendency to turn these BLPs into laundry lists of every bad thing ever said about them? Opposition to WMC and others on these issues has nothing to do with fringe POV, it's about proper sourcing and weight, yet it keeps coming back to us all being grouped in the "anti-science" "flat-earth" "fringe POV pusher" buckets. ATren (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your assertion that you focus on skeptic BLPs is false. This can readily be seen from your contributions history. You contribute virtually nothing to article space, instead focusing on process-oriented discussions that seek to avoid virtually any sanction against contrarian editors while aggressively sanctioning those who edit from a scientific perspective (often leavened with borderline personal attacks). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. If I edit articles directly I'm being tendentious. If I fight back on talk I'm a disruptive "septic". If I discuss civilly on talk I'm a "civil POV pusher". If I do neither and simply report infractions I'm "wikilawyering". You've created a situation where anything but blind agreement with the status quo is actionable. In any case, I am completely comfortable with my edit history -- if you examine my history, a few weeks ago I completely detached from article work in this area (which is pretty pointless given the environment) and decided to focus completely on research for the inevitable arbcom case that will come of all this. In the meantime, I've participated in a very small way on the enforcement page mostly responding to accusations from others, and I reported one user for behavior which admins agreed was actionable. So go ahead, take my contribution history to arbcom if you like, I am fully prepared to defend everything I've done.

And MastCell, I certainly hope you will direct the same advice at Boris (and others) as you directed at me, basically to "put up or shut up". ATren (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not healthy to spend all of your time fighting about this. And looking at your contribs, it is literally all you do here. That's evident from your post above - you see your options for contributing to Wikipedia as a) fight on the talk page, b) fight in article space, or c) "detach" and fight in projectspace. Your last 100 article edits go back about a year. They are almost all reverts against the same handful of antagonists. Find something else to do here for awhile. It will be good for you, I promise. MastCell ^Talk 00:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My health is fine. My edit history is fine. I don't spend much time here because I am busy in real life, but in the time I do spend I've chosen to focus on something which I believe is a problem. I don't care to do something else, and I don't believe anything I've done is problematic. I still view the state of some GW skeptic bios as abysmal, but efforts to fix them have been met by extensive resistance, so I've decided to focus on researching the history of this debate (partially on your advice, BTW) in preparation for the inevitable arbcom case that will come of this; I only chime in occasionally when I see something obviously problematic. Again, I fail to see why any of this is improper or abusive, and I see no reason to alter my behavior. Perhaps you should direct your advice and warnings towards those who are being disruptive in this debate -- see the probation enforcement log page for a list of possibilities. ATren (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Long experience leads me to conclude that people who focus exclusively on pushing one side of a single contentious dispute tend to be detrimental to the project, rationalizations notwithstanding. You seem to fall squarely in that category. If it sounds like I'm giving you "advice", it's because I think you have more of value to offer the project than what we're seeing at the moment. But I'm not "warning" you and I don't feel like fighting with you, so feel free to disregard my advice as you see fit. MastCell ^Talk 01:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For your supportive comment. It did seem rather like an attempt to bully me, my intention is to retire to dacha and sleep on it before doing anything. Unfortunately I've been accused of holding a grudge and my clumsy attempt at paraphrasing my understanding of policy was jumped on, so I've tried to clarify things a little to improve working conditions on the collective. Interesting times, let's hope that the people's science will now find global warming receding as quickly as the opinions of the masses. . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sekret kommunike to Boris

Comrad, central propaganda office has need of additional characters for important projekts. Your decadent hoarding of characters for personal talking has been noted. You have supreme duty to return characters in support of the fatherland. -- J. Stalin (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm feeling much better now. This is largely due to a physical therapy regimen of lifting common household objects (e.g., Claymore mines, live electric wires, bassoons) to a height of 27 cm. Exhausting at times but you can keep up strength with a diet of spiced goat offal, uncooked black eyed peas, and 'Frop. See you round the clubs! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Spooferama

This looks like a very clever parody, but now I have a weird feeling that you're going to tell me it's real. Thing is, if you did, I wouldn't be that surprised. --TS 01:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ruth is stranger than Richard.[38] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy steaming fewmets. I presume you know about the Indiana Pi Bill, yes? Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Userpage revert

Hello! I reverted an edit by an IP to your userpage, but I wasn't sure if it was actually vandalism. My apologies if the IP happens to be you, and feel free to revert my revert. liquidluck✽talk 01:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's good to know somebody's watching. Yes, it really was me but you had no way to know that. Cheers - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! You Americans are mad

I'm assuming you've put that stuff on your userpage because you're standing shoulder to shoulder in solidarity :-).

I luuuuuurveeee That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena - presumably they would have liked to add "theological" but the seperation of church and state prevents them?

I wiki-linked thermological because I didn't know what they meant. But its red :-(

William M. Connolley (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, thermology is the logic of therms. Don't they teach anything in Cambridge? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's A Kind of Magic. Verbal chat 10:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Although a more helpful link would be Unseen University. Verbal chat 10:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Cmon, this is a challenge. We *can* write an article on thermology... William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, it already exists. And, as a special bonus, there is a Naughty Pic there! Phwoar (sorry, but I went to public school) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking Thaum - whoops! Verbal chat 12:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an obvious misprint to me. Verbal is right, they mean thaumological. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 14:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of unintended humor, for those who (like me) don't ordinarily follow the dramaboards this is abso-freaking-lutely hilarious. Be sure to look at the various revisions of Herostratus's user page as well as the linked ANI thread. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Blog refs

[39] per your edit summary mark nutley (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

GA initiative

I've asked WMC if he would be willing and able to help take the Watts Up With That article to Good Article status. As my request details, me and a couple of other editors have almost completed preparing the DeSmogBlog article for GA nomination, and I think it would be great if both reached GA about the same time. Observing your interest in the Watts blog article, I suggested to WMC that he ask you to assist. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not interested in earning merit badges, sorry. But I appreciate the offer. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my reasoning was this: submitting an article for GA gets it an independent review from a GA reviewer, thus improving overall article quality. Also, the article gets listed on the GA page, increasing its visibility and hopefully participation in improving the article evern further, with the ultimate goal of getting it featured and listed on the main page. Don't you believe that this is a good thing? Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)