User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs) at 22:29, 23 August 2010 (thinning out per Chronie). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

There is no Cabal


File:RR double swirl.jpg

shortcut to climate articles

a pretty good essay

A pocket guide to arbitration - under slow development

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)[reply]

Da, KGB never wrong. Boris must begin practice "eh". Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bob and Doug MacKenzie will rule Minnesota. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They did always strike me as fellow travelers, or at least useful idiots. MastCell Talk 03:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All idiots are useful, but some idiots are more useful than others. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? ---Skyemoor (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
heh...are you stirring up trouble, Boris? :-) R. Baley (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmmmm. Oops! Carry on.... Mark Shaw (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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 ([2]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fasces and sickle

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Bourgeois hooliganism one of few pleasurable activities in this collective. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SBHBOW? Hard to say. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
...or change the mission name :-). Awickert (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It was Kim and Awickert who violated Rule 5. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Low willpower. Awickert (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Do we have to slip first, or can we go straight to the Aqavit? -Atmoz (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Ålborg's going down ;-) (never have a freezer without) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

PLACEMENT COMES FIRST. MastCell Talk 21:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Where's Keeper? We're talkin' baseball here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boris, Newbie Help has a few observations [[3]] on "Rule 5", they seem good to me.--Damorbel (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Sockpuppetry accusation

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

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


Nathan T 18:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Beer? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 [5] for evidence), but that would be even more impressive. MastCell Talk 18:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Technically I've been here before. I just assumed you missed the orange bar ;) Nathan T 19:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Or one of your sockpuppets. I've been tempted to register User:Legion before someone takes it.[6] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resign

I thought you were resigning but you were only re-signing :-) [7] William M. Connolley (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

I hope you can understand how hilarious this is. Thanks, it's very helpful. --Abd (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We live to serve. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Boris angry because he can no longer sound cryptic about Rule 5. Awickert (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the real rule 5. -Atmoz (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. But cabal secrets must be closely guarded. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no cabal, and this is not a secret message. 000393DB396E. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is this. 66:6e:6f:72:64. Antandrus (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57:65:62:65:72:6e:3f Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4e:6f:20:63:61:62:61:6c:20:68:65:72:65:3f --GoRight (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
WWVzIEdvUmlnaHQsIHRoZXJlIHJlYWxseSBpcyBubyBjYWJhbC4u --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"generally believed to be extinct" Yabba dabba doo! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominate "The description of the "Thunder bird" of American Indians matches the descriptions of pterosaurs." from [8]. It's a somewhat subtle joke, though...--Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

← 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are you bein' from the land of my home folk? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • There is a [citation needed] 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)[reply]

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.)  pablohablo. 07:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Thanks

At last some sanity [9]. Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 5, never forget Rule 5. I learned that from the immortal Leninist harvester. Antandrus (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Force is strong with this one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

sw17?

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

It's the Seventeenth Commandment in the Bible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It didn't totally look right to me either. --Nealparr (talk to me) 11:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know there were 17, but found out the 11th is "Don't get caught..." --Skyemoor (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Boise keep swinging

Have you met User:RandyInBoiseIdaho?   pablohablo. 10:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually funny ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's even funnier if you know the creator of the account... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that spoiled it a bit for me... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]
Seconded (and merry christmas to both of ya' (and lurkers)) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'll happily change it to the original; I'm ignorant of wiki-history, Awickert (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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—

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)[reply]

Que sera sera. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's excellent, accurate, and very practical. It needs to be more widely linked. Antandrus (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I notice Boris is now listed twice... -Atmoz (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Interesting. Don't know the underlying politics and entanglements. Barely know who Tedder is at all. Guettarda (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Excellent

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

POCC and discussion

I hope I did a good job on this one,[15] 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.[16]

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.[17] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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."[18] Well that's the news. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

Consternation and Hilarity

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

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Most of our noticeboards suck

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My sanity or lack there of

This is in regards your comment here[19]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Can an editor asked to be blocked? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
GoRight suggested to check out WP:SELFBLOCK. That javascript seems useful... SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 19:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Global warming good

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

flat earth

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ruth is stranger than Richard.[20] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Holy steaming fewmets. I presume you know about the Indiana Pi Bill, yes? Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Obviously, thermology is the logic of therms. Don't they teach anything in Cambridge? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It's A Kind of Magic. Verbal chat 10:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although a more helpful link would be Unseen University. Verbal chat 10:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cmon, this is a challenge. We *can* write an article on thermology... William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I was thinking Thaum - whoops! Verbal chat 12:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Blog refs

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

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

While we're on the topic

I'm looking through the Everglades GA for Moni3. The end of the 1st paragraph of Everglades#Water mentions vegetation causing convective storms. I don't know much about that, so if you have a minute or two, could you expand on that (or alternately, comment on its correctness)? Awickert (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misread it: The abundance of fresh water allowed new vegetation to take root, and formed convective thunderstorms over the land through evaporation.[31][32] says the water allows veg, and also allows thunderstorms William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks William. That makes a lot more sense - I wonder why I read it the other way. Awickert (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Now now

I thought you were American and therefore a fan of "tautological repetitions" but apparently not [22]. You cannot just go around speaking correctly like that you have a national reputation to uphold. --BozMo talk 06:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally several decades ago I took over as CEO of an African state joint venture oil company. Before I went out I went through the accident stats and was pleased to see they were pretty good. After a little while in the field though I heard some stories of dead bodies and investigated. There had been a problem with armed hold ups in service stations and my Africa predecessor had done a deal with the police for armed policeman to be disguised as pump attendants. Some eight "bandits" (alleged) had died in several incidents. These had not been reported to our European parent, even though the rules made it clear the policeman would count as agents and should be included as part of the operations. When I approached my charming (but long since dead) predecessor on the lack of declaration he got the form out and point out it was only for reporting accidental death. Deliberately killing people was not something apparently which had been envisaged. --BozMo talk 06:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Featured Picture

Wikipedia's best illustration of surface tension. Paperclip resting on cellophane vinyl.

On 28 March 2010. Did you see it? . -Atmoz (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zounds, egad, and alackaday. Did anyone remark on what a sh*tty picture it is? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"it has been said that the passive voice is to be avoided"

Can you please direct me to the specific policy or guideline which addresses this passive voice issue that you reference? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Use_of_the_passive_voice More importantly, it's broadly considered that passive voice inhibits clarity; see e.g., [23][24]. Note also that the passive voice often entails use of a "copulative verb," which certainly is naughty. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I'm not sure how to resolve this issue. There have been many different complaints levied by many different people. To try to simplify that for the lede is a daunting task. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try but

Lar has no shame William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That he continues to represent himself not merely as "uninvolved" in the narrow technical sense (for which he can make a somewhat reasonable case) but as "impartial" is mind-blowing. But my point remains: scientifically literate editors need to hold themselves to a higher standard than the contrarians. You'll never, ever satisfy Lar -- I've noticed that he tends to construct his worldview from broad impressions without necessarily having a basis in fact, and when factual inconsistencies are pointed out he bobs and weaves instead of simply saying, "oh, I hadn't realized that." But other admins -- yes, including LHvU, whom I suspect you probably don't have a high opinion of -- are doing a reasonable job. Once again, keep your own conduct absolutely above reproach. The asymmetry sucks, but life is like that sometimes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad you struck that bit, now I'm happy. The advice re civility is good though - if you can, remember to kick me every now and again William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think LHvU is very fair-minded except where you, personally, are involved. But I acknowledge that "fair-minded except where User X is involved" isn't appropriate. And yeah, I'll gladly kick you as don't call the civility police on me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I responded to your comment on my take page. Just in case you wanted to... well... respond to it. Macai (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battlegroundish behavior

"I assume there's a source" isn't usually considered adequate justification. I must say, for someone with so many FAs your knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is astonishingly poor. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)][reply]

That second sentence isn't really necessary. Could you try to avoid remarks like that in the future please? I certainly think I understand why you said that (frustration at the state of CC articles and talk pages), but comments like that only gives more ammunition to CC skeptics. NW (Talk) 21:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be one-sided on this, either. Feel free to point out any diffs to me that you feel are crossing the line. NW (Talk) 21:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I do get a little miffed at Cla68's shenanigans but will try to avoid expressing those frustrations as it only plays into his hands. You're one of the more neutral and constructive admins who are involved in the sanctions, so I certainly will take your advice to heart. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SBHB, the DeSmogBlog article is fair and neutral. I chose that article on purpose to show that it is possible to edit in a neutral manner, no matter what the topic, and especially so if editors make an effort to get along with each other. I believe that RealClimate will be no different. That's why I challenged you and a few others to do the same with the Watts Up With That article. That article still could use some work so the invitation remains open. Cla68 (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Challenging" someone to edit neutrally, along with repeated insistence after they have made their wishes clear, does not strike me as particularly helpful. Remember, cooperation, collaboration, and compromise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in GA, then the latest paper Cla has helpfully linked to at t:GA provides some very useful ammo. I've excerpted the most useful bits :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toned down

I toned down my comment about the sock per your request, but now I'm being told my editing is combattive (unsourced), and that I call people "yahoo's," "septics," and "idiots." Why do I have to put up with this? Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your temper even when provoked. No, keep your temper especially when provoked; it throws the other person's misbehavior into sharper focus. So when someone says stuff like this ask for specific diffs but make sure to do it in an exactingly polite way. Oh, and while I'm here please note that people look with jaundiced eye on someone demanding an apology. It makes you look too aggressive, besides which an apology must be freely given to be meaningful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Personal attacks

Regarding your accusations of misrepresenting sources, I wish to formally remind you of WP:NPA. As you've admitted the text I removed was indeed sourced by blogs, there is no question that the accusation is unwarranted. I ask that you self-revert your accusation, and please AGF and show due diligence before making such claims in the future. Fell Gleaming(talk) 03:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to take this to the enforcement board where uninvolved administrators can evaluate the situation. Would you like to post there, or would you prefer me to do it? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't plan to seek enforcement for a single attack. I can believe it was merely a mistake. However, I do request that you be more careful. Fell Gleaming(talk) 04:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I gather that you would prefer me to be the one to file the enforcement request. I probably won't have time to do it tonight, but remind me tomorrow. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of BLPs, I've defended the removal of negative information from both warmists' and sceptics' bios. It's the right thing to do. I hope all the AGW editors will start doing the same. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. What's a "warmist"? It's not in the dictionary.[25] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is more than just a BLP issue. SBH has accused me of "misrepresenting a source" -- by labeling it a blog ... then 15 minutes later he admits it was a blog. In fact, he admitted there were TWO blogs in the deleted sentence. As per WP:NPA, such allegations made without evidence can and do constitute personal attacks. Further, he has continued his claim and even suggested he will "seek enforcement", though given his earlier admission, I'm not sure on what basis. Fell Gleaming(talk) 04:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I supppose that you really mean to say is that you deleted something large (this), Boris protested the part that was sourced to the USGS, and there is some question as to whether the sources really are blogs in the WP sense (at least one doesn't fall under "blog" per Wikipedia guidelines as Boris pointed out to you). I strongly suggest that now is the time to start being perfectly clear in what happened. Otherwise your argument falls apart with a minute of investigation, and it just makes it look to me like you're trying to spin it.
Now would also be a good time to drop the issue for more productive occupations (like, for example, collaborating on finding good sources)... Awickert (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close vs. noclose

I assumed that request is getting closed, and as such have chosen not to present evidence in it, instead holding for one that is in the venue of GSCC. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the best course per Polargeo's advice on my bit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change in the United Kingdom

At Talk:Climate_change_in_the_United_Kingdom#Here.27s_a_challenge... you said the following about me:

"Hard to know what to do. AL's drive to make coverage of climate change as fragmented as possible seems unstoppable at this point, so all we can do is try to contain the damage. How best to accomplish that?"

I disagree that I am fragmenting the climate change articles. Can you explain how you arrived at the opinion that I quoted above? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Gidday, I'm just asking for a bit of a help and you seem like you've been around a while. Hope you don't mind?

Over here, you said that "WP:V sez Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available." which sounds reasonable enough. However here, Kim D. Petersen says that using academic articles "in general is a bad idea if you have reliable secondary sources that do this for you."

I'm not saying that either you or KDP are wrong, I was hoping you could maybe elaborate a bit or point me somewhere that I could read about it. I had a read of WP:V and WP:PRIMARY and on this point they actually seemed a bit contradictory to me?? cheers Thepm (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you claim?

It looks like you claim that I've done a "information or misquote you to compel you to respond. They may manipulate the civility policy as a weapon." request at Hipocrite (talk · contribs)s page? Read the two diffs and make your own judment. Is it ok too call another Wikipedia user Wife beater (2010-04-25T11:33:14 Hipocrite (→NPOV tag: Wifebeater!))? Is it ok to call another user "you make an ass" 2010-04-25T12:44:11 Hipocrite (→Violation of WP:SYN: When you assume)? Maybe my English is so poor that it can be explained away? Wondering. Nsaa (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are common idioms that are not personal accusations. See e.g., our article on leading question for the 'wife beating' term is specifically mentioned. Perhaps English is not your native language, so you are unaware of this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. As far as I see this is extremely objectionable comments, and in no way help fostering a cooperative environment. About "Have you stopped beating your wife?" it says "It is however objectionable because it assumes (among other things) that the witness (1) was married and (2) had in fact beaten his wife in the past, facts which (presumably) have not been established.". So yes this is probably a blocking reason iff it continues or just a topic ban for a given period as far as I see. And your accusation against my extremly polite message on his talk page? Nsaa (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The snide comment that "perhaps English is not your native language" is also uncalled for, in my opinion. Fell Gleaming(talk) 19:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a little further, and it turns out that on User:Nsaa we see "Denne brukaren/brukeren har norsk som morsmål" which if my limited knowledge of the Nordic languages is correct, translates to "This user (masculine/feminine) has Norwegian as his mother tongue." So my hunch was correct. Now what was that about a "snide comment"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed, I'm sure...

++Lar: t/c 03:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Warming of the climate system is happening"

Hi

I'm not happy with your removal of (1) "Warming of the climate system is happening" from the global warming article. This is a statement based on several reliable sources. It represents current scientific thinking. Your replacement, (2) "Evidence for warming of the climate system includes [...]" is not adequate. (1) is a reply to the question -

"Is warming happening?"

- (2) is not. The job of scientists is to answer the question I've put. Statement (1) is a direct answer to this question: "yes, it is." Statement (2) does not answer this question. To say that there is evidence for warming is not the same as answering the question that I've put. Enescot (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?

Hi. Would you like to be an admin? I wouldn't nominate you but I've been known to send email to people who aren't as reviled as I. Hipocrite (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded! *evil grin* --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he needs a nom, but rather a prod (*prod, prod*). He resigned it in good standing. Guettarda (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Does that prove that we're not an evil cabal of PoV pushing alarmists? Shouldn't this have been mentioned on our facebook friends pages before I embarassed myself here? Hipocrite (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of facebook - none of you are my friends there! And I need more allies in Mafia Wars, and more neighbours in Farm Town! :) Guettarda (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too old for Facebook. I'm doing my plotting the old-fashioned way. If you get a secret conspirational note, observe it carefully. The pink paper will burn up within 15 seconds after reading. The blue one can be eaten to destroy it. Do not eat the pink paper! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do remember hearing that at one point, though I cannot recall your former username. Now, who might you be? NW (Talk) 01:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll narrow down the possibilities. Boris' RfA passed without opposition, supported unanimously by a broad cross-section of Wikipedians impressed by his level-headedness and constructive editing on controversial topics (particularly in the area of climate change). His record as an admin (and as an editor) under his former username was exemplary. Under his real name, he's a full professor at a major US research university, and he's published extensively in the academic peer-reviewed literature on climatology. In a sane world, where Wikipedia's ostensible goal of producing a serious, respectable reference work was honestly held as opposed to a fundraising trope, he'd be the sort of person whom we'd beg to lead the development of our articles on climate change. That's right - he's Archtransit. :P MastCell Talk 04:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I always rather admired your decision to stop being an admin, and while I don't know if this is true or not -- I suspect it was rather "freeing". But you've been a non-admin for a while now. Getting your bit back is quite as simple as asking, and you were one darn fine admin, if I may say so. (I've been tempted to toss away the bit too, to focus again on the pleasure of writing, and remove one of the major irritants ... but I digress.) MastCell is right in his analysis above ... but are we a sane world in Wikipedia? Expert contributors involved in contentious areas with a sense of humor have, right there, three strikes against them on RFAs. Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical. Antandrus (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not good. I have seen SBHB start to act all sensible recently which is exactly the behaviour of one who wishes to be an admin. Either become an admin and start being yourself or remove any thought of it. Polargeo (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would love to see you take back your being an administrator.  :) (Oh, and I knew you were joking too, the template was the give away!) --CrohnieGalTalk 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I heard he resigned "under a cloud" due to constantly making sock puppets with crude names of female genitalia. They banned all the socks whose names that they thought were suggestive, leaving only Short Brigade Harvester Boris, even though it sounded slightly nasty, because they weren't quite sure what it meant. So they made him keep that name for all time, never to change it to something cooler. (That's what I heard, anyway.) But if he wants it, I say IAR, give him back the bit! ;) Auntie E. (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I swear to "Bob", or Mao, or whoever you like, I thought it was just a funny name from a Python skit and had no idea that's what it meant. So it was doubly embarrassing: first, because I would never do anything offensive like that, and second, because I didn't "get it" until people told me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, there is more to it than an old Firesign Theater sketch? Is that not enough for you? I also thought that the variously amusingly named socks were after the rename or whatever, but that is just my vague recollection of MastCell and maybe OrangeMarlin and people like that making comments that did not seem to make sense to new accounts. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what made it so funny, Boris. Hope you don't mind, I'm just ragging on you. (I wouldn't if I didn't like you.) No offense intended; it's just me, Auntie E... ;) Auntie E. (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. We aim to please. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singer draft

Hi SB, you said you felt there was something verging on OR in the draft of the Singer article. Would you mind giving details here, so I can try to fix it? Even just a rough idea would be helpful. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the next few weeks I'll be contributing only occasionally to WP so that I can focus on committing acts of unspeakable wickedness. But basically look for qualifying statements -- "a leading figure," and so on -- to make sure that these characterizations (whether positive or negative) are well sourced. As implied in my comment it's not blatant OR, but we need to be sure the reader understands that these evaluations are based on reliable sources and are not our own views. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assumes facts not in evidence

"Lar's refusal to even admit the possibility that those criticizing his actions could be acting in good faith and not because they "bear him animus" is a large part of the problem." I think you're going to have a hard time trying to demonstrate that, because it's false. I'm much more open to taking criticism on board, and acting on it, than many people I could name... want me to name a few? But that's an inconvenient truth, isn't it? ++Lar: t/c 01:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Do name a few, instead of leaving a void of insinuation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You. SBHB. SV. Raul654. Jayjg. ... and the granddaddy of them all, WMC. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, just compare Lar's and WMC's talk pages. Lar allows everyone to leave comments. WMC quickly removes comments that he apparently finds displeasing. Do you need diffs? That should take me all of several minutes to find. What do you think about that? Cla68 (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that your name is Lar? Archiving or deleting does not mean not reading or not taking aboard. You are confusing your personal assumptions about something with reality. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you raise this "I'm surprised that your name is Lar?" objection, frankly. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, WMC often responds to questions he doesn't like on his talk page in edit summaries as he summarily deletes them. Lar tries to respond to questions or comments with his honest opinion without removing them even if he disagrees with them. So, based on that, which of the two do you feel is being more honest and above board in their participation in this website? Cla68 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like an interesting example of dishonest spin from Cla, then [26] is a nice diff William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC, welcome to this conversation since you are one of the subjects under discussion. I have a question while you're here. Why do you remove so many comments from your user talk page, even those that aren't from vandals, trolls, or Scibaby socks? Lar doesn't do this. Why do you do it? Cla68 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cla, how is your wikibreak going? Finding it hard to stay away? As to your question: it is a very odd one: you appear to be asking: "why isn't your talk page archiving policy identical to that of Lar?" As soon as I clarify that, you see how absurd your question is, I'm sure. Let me re-phrase it in a non-absurd way: Q: "why do I archive stuff?". A: to stop my page getting cluttered. If you'd like another go at a non-absurd rephrasing, please try William M. Connolley (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. That's not what he's asking at all. What he's asking is why you brush off certain comments so readily. It's acceptable by policy, of course, but it does make one wonder. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC, my plane leaves in the morning (Japan time) so please don't worry about my schedule. As far as archiving policy goes, your talk page history shows that you "archive" certain comments much quicker than others. Could you explain your archive policy here? Cla68 (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point. Lar doesn't do this. Why do you? Cla68 (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the edit comment William M. Connolley (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The placement of your "cabal approved" sticker interferes with reading it. Why is that? ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a cunning plan to hide secret infomration from those not allowed to read it. Happily it has worked William M. Connolley (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68, in your comments about Wikipedia you often mention "the rules" of the project and how everyone needs to follow them. Surely you are aware that the rules say that it is perfectly acceptable to remove comments after they have been read, and that this has been repeatedly confirmed in AN/I complaints and elsewhere. So I'm curious as to why you are asking WMC to justify a practice that the community has consistently agreed is acceptable. He has given his response above, and to continue pressing the point after he has responded is unhelpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, at RFAR

I've mentioned your behavior somewhat indirectly but by name in my comments at the Arbcom requests page, here [27] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Fruit?

I'm thinking of forming the "fruit party" as a possible alternative to the imaginary cabal. Would you like to join? You can be "old fruit". I was going to be "rotten fruit". Stephan can be "day old strawberries going a bit squishy" or perhaps something snappier. And so on. We'll need some graphics William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To join this party violate Marxist principle. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming 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—

Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist realism?

I'm surprised that you seem to be more into Dadaism than Socialist realism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ZP5's writing style often is -- interesting and highly original, shall we say. But his view here is sensible, especially Too many content issues are turned in to bad editor behavior issues and brought the the RFE as I have said elsewhere. So to the extent that I have correctly interpreted his view I endorse at least this part of it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha...I assumed that what I could not parse was what you could not parse, so your qualifier would have left the empty set. Parsing again, I see there is a bit more there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragging skeptics into the open...

...whether they are skeptical or not. Have you seen [28]? I thought it might interest you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasap!

Just wanted to say hi outside of the context of a debate. I appreciate your comments and your views. Have a nice day "Boris". Torontokid2006 (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The media have been alerted already

Black helicopters apparently are real. Or at least reportedly real. Apparently. (3:54 PM) ++Lar: t/c 02:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boris, if it makes you feel better, you're always welcome to work on medical articles. We get better press (e.g. presentation at ASCO, writeup in Washington Post). Clearly there's room for improvement, though. And after editing climate change, you'll find the occasional Western-medicine-is-poison-and-you-are-all-drug-industry-shills encounter quaintly amusing at worst. MastCell Talk 06:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SBHB: This was posted in the hope that you'd find it amusing. Whoever writes those police blotter reports for that small town paper has a very droll sense of humor, and I really appreciated it. I don't think whatever MastCell is talking about has anything to do with the topic. If you don't find it amusing, oh well, I tried. ++Lar: t/c 13:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is funny :) Polargeo (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right that I should probably have started a new thread. MastCell Talk 00:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, write whatever you want wherever you want. As an enthusiast of music like this and this, it doesn't bother me when people depart from traditional form. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case

Because you have been involved in the recent SPI I am informing you of the arbcom case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence Polargeo (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. It is unlikely that I will participate, as I have no illusions that anything I say could influence the case. Note that at least one arbitrator has expressed sympathy for Scibaby in the past; it will be interesting to see if he has the integrity to recuse. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that I just wished to make sure that everyone involved in the SPI case and the Enforcement case was informed becuase it looked like User:WavePart had informed Hipocrite and The Wordsmith and then added only editors who he thought would back him up. A rather shitty tactic and obviously not one that I approve of. Polargeo (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you did that, it would be a bad thing. But in his case that's not a problem, because he is fighting for Truth, Justice, and the Armenian Way. :-P Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so new to wikipedia that I would do that. Even when I was new to wikipedia I still informed everyone on all sides of an issue because of my principles. The only mistake I occassionaly made back then was to state my own views on the matter when I informed people. Now I just do it neutrally. Polargeo (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gore Effect

Did you change your mind based on the merits of the article, or based on editors and their personalities/comments? I would think the decision should ignore personality clashes and aim for creating the best possible encyclopedia. Yopienso (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind for the reason that I stated: it has become clear that it will be impossible to write a neutral, encyclopedic article. That's not a "personality clash" as you put it; as far as I can tell the individuals involved are reasonably pleasant, though that's neither here nor there in an encyclopedic sense. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you also said, "It appears certain editors will not allow any statements that question applications of the meme," it sounded like more a problem with editors than with the merits of the article. I'm still confused about your reasoning, but I don't want to annoy to you, so.... Thanks for your prompt and friendly response! I'm retiring for the night now. Regards, --Yopienso (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

  • The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
  • Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
  • Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
    • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
    • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
    • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
    • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
  • All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
  • Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
  • The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
  • All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
  • Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
  • Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
  • Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A splendid time is guaranteed for all. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone open an arbitration case during the World Cup? There should be a moratorium on things like this until at least July 12! Guettarda (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On looking in more detail I see that a decision most likely has already been reached. Thus I am not inclined to present evidence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more. Maybe the real point of having the special procedures note a specific timeline is to get it all done before the rounds of 16 start? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Institutionalizing Error

I appreciate your taking the time to consider my thoughts elsewhere on a similar, but decidedly more serious consideration. I actually don't recall a sense of "strenuous objection" as much I felt a sense of "strenuous exasperation"...probably quite similar to your experience in "Gore Effect".

Please note that Olbermann's commentary still resides in the article and has, to my knowledge, never been deleted...nor even rebutted or "balanced" by additional sourcing. The reason is quite simple. While I believe Olbermann's commentary to be specious beyond any doubt, I couldn't find any additional sourcing on the subject as nobody really cared enough to pursue it further. C'est la guerre.

Let me reiterate one of my final thoughts on the subject with which you just might identify...

"...an argument might still be legitimately made that Olbermann's "quip" might qualify under WP:V based upon its repetition in subsequent "echo chambers"...like "Huffington Post". Assuming that to be so and also assuming my argument to have some merit, we are presented with a situation where something that might arguably be WP:V yet based on a false premise is currently incorporated in this article."

I don't expect you'll have any better luck in editing the "Gore Effect" article than I had in editing "WorldNetDaily"...at least you shouldn't that is. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gore Effect invoked at rallies

You removed three sources from the sentence: "The Gore Effect has also been humorously invoked at several climate rallies." These have however been added back in due to AQFK resetting the page a day back or so. I'm assuming you thought the sources did mention the gore effect, but didn't state that it was actually mentioned during the rally. I am not completely sure what invoke at exactly means in this case (as someone must have thought the sources do state that), so hesitant to remove the sources and the sentence due to it being unsourced. Figured you wanted to atleast know about it as you pointed the bad sourcing of it out to MN on an other page. 83.86.0.74 (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"GWCab"

[29] Could you provide the diff where I used the phrase "GWCab" in Wikipedia? I don't remember using it. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've certainly used it on WR, and I think also on WP. But I don't recall exactly where I might have seen it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't back up that I've used it in WP with a diff/evidence, do you feel that it's appropriate to say that I've used the term in the context such as the diff I provided above? If so, why? Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Do you deny using the term? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've used it in Wikipedia. So, if I haven't, why did you bring it up? Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a response to the question I asked. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss comments I've made off-wiki in other forums, then you are invited to do so in those forums. In fact, I think I've invited you to participate at WR several times, to which you have declined. So, why are you raising the issue on-wiki in the context I linked to above? Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a term for someone who is polite to your face and then goes off with his friends to hurl insults. It's not considered a compliment. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, so it's a personal attack. I'm glad we've cleared that up. Cla68 (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, accusations of "GWCab" or "AGW cadre" are personal attacks, whether made on or offwiki. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be seen as the sort of editor who'd pat you on the back in front of your face and cut your throat behind your back. . . dave souza, talk 07:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, one of the nice things about Wikipedia Review is that it provides a place for editors to speak their minds about things going on in Wikipedia without fear of sanction. On Wikipedia we have policies about civility and other behaviors to facilitate collaboration, cooperation, and compromise, which is why personal attacks in WP are theoretically sanctionable offenses. So, if you two are concerned with building neutral, comprehensive articles on topics, including global warming, which I assume that you are, then why would you care what is being said in off-wiki forums, especially if its in a forum that you all are free to join in the discussion yourselves? Furthermore, why would you feel the need to bring it up on-wiki instead of simply concentrating on in-wiki behavior? Cla68 (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make personal attacks on a gossip site, that's your problem, but it doesn't facilitate collaboration, cooperation, and compromise, not that compromise with fringe views is necessarily a Good Thing. . . dave souza, talk 08:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wikipedia Review actually have an affect on what goes on in Wikipedia? Cla68 (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This very section? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Well your discussions on WR have involved Lar who is acting as an uninvolved admin and appears to back you up and you him very strongly on wiki against certain users that you complain about on WR. This is an observation of mine but there are dozens of links/diffs I could come up with in a very short space of time if you care to request them. Polargeo (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68, don't you realize that by trying to compartmentalize your behavior in this way you leave people asking questions like "Who is the real Cla68? Can I trust what he says?" You'll probably never understand why, but I respect the folks who are just as nasty on WP as they are on WR. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the obvious question here, SBHB, is why should you care how I feel about things? I'm an anonymous account name, as are you and most other editors in Wikipedia. I don't know who or what you are in real life and no intention of trying to find out. All I care about, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is how we behave as we try to build articles. That should be all that matters. So, knowing that, why would you go read what someone is saying on Wikipedia Review if you have no intention of participating there yourself? Shouldn't my on-wiki behavior be all that matters? I can think of only one exception to this rule, and that is if it turned out that I had a conflict of interest. Again, however, if I'm following Wikipedia's rules then even that wouldn't, theoretically, be a problem. So, again, why would you spend any time and effort trying to figure out how I personally feel about things in Wikipedia? Shouldn't my efforts, or lack thereof, to follow Wikipedia's rules and cooperate, collaborate, and compromise be all that matters? Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that as long as you follow the "rules," nothing else should matter? That if it's legal it's OK? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I think I remember saying something to that effect during the ArbCom election campaign. Are you saying something different? Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should strive to conduct ourselves with sufficient honesty and integrity that we don't need rules and that there are lots of things that are not formally prohibited but that we still shouldn't do. I gather we have a very different fundamental outlook on such matters and it is unlikely we will reach agreement. In a hypothetical example, suppose that Wikipedia policies against sockpuppeting and personal attacks were suddenly repealed. Would you do those things because they are now permissible? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It comes down to this: editors who get away with anything they want here don't need to go to WR to vent, which makes it particularly hypocritical when they criticize someone like Cla. ATren (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I wonder if Cla and Lar regard you as someone who is mildly annoying but who hangs on their every word and backs them up whatever. I think you potentially have more about you than this but it is just that you haven't displayed it yet. Polargeo (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, one of the nice things about Wikipedia Review is that it provides a place for editors to speak their minds about things going on in Wikipedia without fear of sanction. Heh heh heh hah hah hah ho ho ho ha ha ha hee hee hee ... aaaaah, not always. Say hi to Somey for me, Cla. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-issues questions

A few of your questions on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop do not conform to the requested single-sentence question requested by the Committee. Please rephrase your sub-issues to be a single sentence. Thank you, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got them all. Let me know if there's anything else I need to fix. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable people

Re: [30], there is, of course, no shortage of unreasonable people, more's the pity. Mikenorton (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. My favorite is this one.[31] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to point me to the peer-reviewed paper proving that humans normally have 5 fingers on each hand. The conditions are as follows:
  • No US-centric sources - it has to cover worldwide digit count.
  • And it can't be primary research - it has to be a review article.
  • Also, if the authors of the paper have anything that a paranoid off his meds could consider a conflict of interest (for example, if their grant-funded research is predicated on the idea that people have 5 fingers per hand), then I will categorically reject the source as biased.
  • If the authors of the paper just assume that people normally have 5 fingers per hand, without providing citations for their assumption, then I will reject the paper - because what kind of scientist just assumes things?
The above conditions are subject to change should you find a source that actually fulfills all of them. MastCell Talk 18:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about this and this? AJRG (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first paper is behind a paywall so it is not reliable. The second one talks about modeling and you can make a model say anything you want. This "five fingers" stuff is just a theory. Where's the proof? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is written by evolutionists, and fails to present the alternate hypothesis that we were intelligently designed with 5 fingers per hand. This isn't a science encyclopedia, so stop pushing SPOV (which was of course roundly rejected by the community). Also, the paper talks about 5 fingers across the animal kingdom, so it is WP:SYN to apply it in an article solely about humans.

The second source also talks about vetebrates in general (and mostly tetrapods), making it SYN to use it in an article about humans specifically. It was written in 1992, and so I reject it as not up-to-date. Also, if you read the actual text (as opposed to just the abstract), you will see the following:

All modern tetrapods (four legged creatures), as well as all but a few fossil tetrapods, have limbs characterized by five or fewer digits.

... so it's actually about why we have <= 5 fingers, not why we have 5 exactly. Hey, this is kind of fun! And it's much easier than actually trying to find sources and write good articles conveying the current state of human knowledge. To give credit where it's due, many of these objections are not of my own invention, but are taken nearly verbatim from highly enlightened discussion at Talk:Abortion and elsewhere. MastCell Talk 20:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your user page and featured articles

Passing through your user page, I'm trying to think of what the predictability of featured articles and length really means. "A test of restaurant ratings showed that the most reliable way to predict a five star rating was to look at the cost of a bottled water." Does this undercut the reliability of the ratings? I'm not sure it actually does.... (Actually I bet the FA process just makes an article one specific length, something they may not have considered if they thought the evaluation was independent.) Interesting, anyway. Mackan79 (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I puzzled over that too. I think the most important point is that the FA process "focuses on easily measured attributes" rather than content, whether those attributes are length or other things such as proper use of em-dashes, reference formatting, number and placement of images, and the like. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking at the whole body of FAs and trying to use that to deduce something about the FA process, can't ignore the fact that FA criteria have changed substantially in the past few years. The fact that a third of articles fail the FA criteria may not say anything about the FA assessment process, but rather about the re-assessment and maintenance process. Having gotten an article through FA in mid-2008 and another one in March this year, the expectations were a lot higher.
As for the issue of length being the best predictor - again, there's got to be a large legacy effect there. GA was created to deal with articles that were "too short" to be FAs, but today there are very short FAs (Ucucha's extinct rat articles, for example). But yeah, it all depends on the reviewers. As long as Ucucha, Sasata and Casliber are reviewing science articles, the quality standards are pretty damn good. The problem though is that it all depends on the reviewer. Guettarda (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re email

Rodger. Hipocrite (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who? Usually spelt "roger" though William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's your Vector, Victor? Over. Verbal chat 17:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something completely different

You know, you should really check out The Beatles: Rock Band. Even if you're not a fan of music video games (which I'm not, really), it's awesome. First of all, the remasters sound exceptional. And the video clips that were developed to accompany the songs are pretty awesome. It got me listening to songs that I've treated as skippable filler for years, like "Dig A Pony" or "I Wanna Be Your Man". Anyhow, just a thought. MastCell Talk 05:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, are you affiliated with the makers of that game? Why are you promoting it here? ATren (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just feel like the Beatles suffer from low name recognition, so I'm doing my part to raise their visibility. :P You should check it out - if you're a fan of the Beatles, you'll like the game for the music/video if nothing else, even if you're not really into hitting little colored notes flying past on virtual fretboard. MastCell Talk 18:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, our family is fully invested in Guitar Hero and The Beatles is Rock Band only. One set of fake instruments in the family room is quite enough. ;-) ATren (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The newer instruments are cross-compatible, if you feel like shelling out another chunk of change. You could probably sell the old ones on Craigslist in no time. Just saying. MastCell Talk 23:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I didn't know that. I may look into it. Thanks for the tip. ATren (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't afford that stuff, and besides I can't imagine how it could be as much fun as playing the real instruments. One of the great things about the Beatles is that none of them were technically all that advanced, so even an incompetent amateur like me can easily reproduce their parts. The only things they had that I don't were vision, imagination, and talent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you firsthand that playing "Here Comes The Sun" in Beatles: Rock Band is several orders of magnitude harder than playing it on an actual guitar. For me, anyway. MastCell Talk 03:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not knowing how Rock Band works, I imagine it could have trouble accounting for a capo. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Cabbage crates over the briney

Sorry, I'm not getting your banter William M. Connolley (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry for the goat rodeo.[32] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries...

This summary of this paper seems to be a creative interpretation of the abstract - possibly inspired by this impeccable source. Do you have access to the full paper? Ceterum censeo cervisia hiberniam delendam esse My Latin is worse than my library subscription ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already fixed it based on the abstract William M. Connolley (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. You got the gist, though I don't think the paper is all that important -- another one of those "the reconstruction is highly uncertain before date X, so Y may have happened during that time, unless it didn't." Let me know if you want the full pdf. I have no idea what Stephan was on about with people's necks in winter.Unless he meant to write about beer in Ireland. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scotland, actually...so "caledoniam" would have been a little bit less embarrassing. But when I go in, I go in! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summary "What didn't Cesar invade?" confuses me, as he personally only invaded the deep south of Britain, while the invasion of the rest of the island was carried out by other Romans, notably Agricola who defeated the Britons of the north including the Caledonians,[33] and as I recall thought of invading Ireland but was distracted. As one of the races of the Britons, the Caledonians were reportedly up to their necks in water rather than winter.[34] Of course the Scoti were Irish, and the term wasn't applied to North Britain until later. Not sure why the reference to the Hibs, but a comment on Guinness would have been more obvious. Having jumped in with both feet, now tactfully retreats, dave souza, talk 07:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were other Roman generals than Cesar and Alexander the Great? What's next, common descent of humans and petunias? People flying to the moon? You need to keep your stories remotely plausible, you know... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unde etiam vulgare Americiae dictum ‘semper aliquid novi Californiam adferre’. AJRG (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does that translate as "I'll have scotch on the rocks"? . . I'll drink to that, dave souza, talk 23:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mine's a whiskey. Cheers! AJRG (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a bit Irish, make mine a malt. slàinte mhath! . . dave souza, talk 23:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do dheagh shlàinte! AJRG (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<hu> Thanks for the suggestion, improvement ? . . dave souza, talk 23:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Better. It could be tightened even further if you want. (Why are you talking in small letters? Do you have a hangover?) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have done, didn't want to disturb the drinkers. Cheers, dave souza, talk 23:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pun explained

Only a Boris unlikely to like 'em.

Only a bore is unlikely to like 'em.

Not a good as your groan pun, which I plan to steal.--SPhilbrickT 11:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got that one, and I suppose Boring did, too. But I did not get the pun (if any) in "Oh, I thought it was midnight Greenwich time. I'll add some more evidence." This may be a joke (can there be more "evidence"?), but not a pun. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I admit it wasn't as good. I was tired. What does "Short Brigade Harvester Boris" refer to, if anything? Neat name. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mair like hauf a pun, but. The epic tail of SBHB can be found lurking in past versions of our comrade's user page, a literary treat. . . dave souza, talk 19:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try this version, Comrade Cutter of Hair. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant canvassing to all TPWs

I need help with a new article that I just started. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go jump in a vat of acid

Actually, I really wanted to write a clever message for you here, much like Amory did here, but I am not nearly clever enough. I haven't gotten to use the word 'vat' in a long time though, so the title can stay, right? ;)

Anyway, with regards to [35], no chance that you'll be picking up the admin bit again any time soon? It probably won't do wonders for your grant applications, but it would be nice for Wikipedia as a whole! NW (Talk) 14:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC

How timely. I'm presently at a conference in Scotland, where one's thoughts naturally wander to things made in vats. Anyway thanks for the kind words but I don't foresee ever picking up the mop again. But "never" is a long time so the possibility is always there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the famous Vat 69. Your spelling with an "e" is a bit Irish, but the collective has installed a suitable redirect to overcome such thought crimes. If you're near Red Clydeside, comradely commiserations about the erratic weather, chilly for July. . . dave souza, talk 22:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Send me a postcard :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, any chance you would consider setting up an automatic archive system for your user talk? It's growing a bit big for the computer I'm occasionally using to handle easily. NW (Talk) 20:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it this way, but if it's causing problems will whack it down by a few score threads. For various reasons I don't like archiving. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Good luck, Pal

When you have time, will you take a look at IRS as well as the related links and essays in the see also section? I'm interested in what you you see as the one thing that needs to be changed or added to bring this guideline up to spec. I'm only asking for one because I would like to get a taste of where people are at. So if you could change or add something right now, what would it be? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with WP:IRS is that it tries to cover all possible contingencies, with the result that it is equally worthless in each of them. In contrast WP:MEDRS is pretty good because it applies to a reasonably well-defined topic area. 2/0 has made a good start with WP:SCIRS, which adapts MEDRS to the natural sciences. One could then imagine WP:POLIRS for politics and so on, with WP:IRS then being a set of pointers to the subpages. But the one-size-fits-all approach is inherently doomed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Any reason why SCIRS is still an essay and not a content guideline? Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it suggests that our scientific coverage should be based primarily on high-quality, reputable scientific sources. Which is crazy talk, apparently. MastCell Talk 17:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a RFC on the talk page of WP:SCIRS to see if there are any major changes that need to be made before going ahead and making the page a guideline. NW (Talk) 18:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas - because I was waiting for my applied slackitude to pay dividends in the form of someone else shepherding the page through the promotion process. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition for debate

At this year's American Geophysical Union meeting there is a session on "Priorities and Pitfalls: Pathways for Effective Science Communication." Shall I submit an abstract reviewing the coverage of climate change in Wikipedia? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss:

  • Yes. Need help? Guettarda (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming that would be part of the "Pitfalls" session. MastCell Talk 02:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be interesting to read later for sure. Also, would that count as peer-reviewed/RS for our purposes? I know it might in some areas of academia such as computer science. NW (Talk) 03:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't know, but I'd think he could turn a talk into an ms without too much trouble. Could probably have it published by next summer, just in time for the arbcomm to post its PD on teh CC case. Guettarda (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Turn it into this? Do people really get those after getting their doctorates? NW (Talk) 04:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope, manuscript (not the lower case and lack of a full stop), not Master of Science, M.S., which is upper case and usually has full stops, nor multiple sclerosis, which appears to be just MS, no punctuation, nor Ms, in which the first letter is capitalised and which carries a full stop in American usage, though, of course, if we're talking about American usage I suppose I should call it a period. :) Guettarda (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conference papers are more prestigious in CS and some engineering than in the geosciences; in CS, conferences AFAIK are on equal footing with journals. AGU abstracts are decent sources, but are not scrutinized like papers. In other words: good for less controversial things, but not the final word on anything. Awickert (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it would be very interesting, considering the lively debate here and how many people use Wikipedia as a major source of information. I'd definitely attend to see, so long as I'm not scheduled to present during it. I'd say go for it! Awickert (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a shame no one approached any of us for the latest issue of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, which is a Special Issue dedicated to "effective communication of science in environmental controversies". Guettarda (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I think effective science communication is important, and only going to get more so. Who knows, some people might have some ideas beyond whats' in the CabalConfluenceFaction handbook. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking of doing the same thing. I've had that page open in another tab as a reminder to submit an abstract. But I'm not sure I'll get around to it by the deadline. -Atmoz (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a serious tip: I've given a few informal presentations about sources of medical information on the Web, including Wikipedia and its, er, "pitfalls". I think there's a niche for good-quality research/analysis of Wikipedia as a source of scientific information - for example, User:TimVickers has published some work on the subject.

    I actually turned down the opportunity to write a perspective article for a peer-reviewed, respectable, MEDLINE-indexed journal about Wikipedia's medical coverage, mostly because I don't want to associate my real name with my Wikipedia username any more than necessary (believe it or not, there are some real nutjobs on Wikipedia).

    Anyhow, I think the value would not be so much as a RS to use here (after all, an AGU conference abstract can hardly hope to reach our existing high bar for encyclopedic sourcing set by, say, a proudly ignorant partisan op-ed). It would be more useful as a way to reach people who are interested in science education, and let them know that Wikipedia is a widely used resource where their efforts will pay dividends in terms of educating people. MastCell Talk 17:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should do it. But don't restrict yourself to the actual coverage in the articles; probably a more important topic for debate is how to get more climate scientists involved in editing wikipedia. You should cover stuff like the arbcomm case so that you can clearly demonstrate how outside experts would be welcomed and valued, and supported by the admin structure William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • outside experts would be welcomed and valued, and supported by the admin structure - you've started drinking early this weekend, I take it? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from your talkpage! :)

Please oh please archive me. I've gotten so long that some editors are having troubles downloading me at a reasonable amount of time.  :) Thanks for your attention, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer it this way, but since it's you, I'll try to do something about it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Followup on AGU presentation

Now that Arbcom has come down squarely in support of the contrarian POV, is it still worth submitting an abstract to AGU? I wouldn't want to feel responsible for people believing that they could do something constructive here only to get a smackdown from Arbcom. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am intrigued Polargeo (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem. If you follow my version and talk about teh process rather than the articles, you still have a fine paper to present William M. Connolley (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By that, do you mean your comment regarding "stuff like the arbcomm case so that you can clearly demonstrate how outside experts would be welcomed and valued, and supported by the admin structure" (cough, cough, sputter)? I would agree. I've also been planning to mention how Wikipedia's attraction for libertarian/"objectivist" oriented folks tends to affect its coverage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<ec><eek!> At the moment my reading is that various options have been put forward, possibly suggesting continued disagreement amongst the arbiters, and it will depend on the voting. Why not use the opportunity in the abstract to warn expert editors that they can expect pestering and baiting by fringe pov pushers and righteous believers in minority views, will get impeded rather than supported by significant admins, and the only way to survive is to maintain at all times a standard of politeness suited to the most delicate sensibilities. A useful hint, I'd have thought. . . dave souza, talk 16:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, yeah. But couched in more academic (blander) terms. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err yes. That comment was ironic (you know that, but there are some reality-challenged folk around who might not). Don't forget to also praise arbcomm by saying that expertise will be recognised (FoF 9) but only so as to damm them with "ownership" if they ever make a comment on the talk page [36] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because the arbcom is increasingly irrelevant. To begin with, I'm not sure they're even aware that they have "come down squarely in support of the contrarian POV". The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia continues to matter. And at least in theory, the PD comes down strongly in support of mainstream reliable sources and due weight. Assuming that passes, it's actually quite an improvement - after all, SV has been campaigning hard, across a swath of articles, against UNDUE, and seems to have found support from Lar and that crew.
WP:SOURCES and WP:WEIGHT are trump cards, but only if they're used. And they become more useful as more people understand their importance. That's where the issue of science communication becomes important. Getting scientists to blog is a great idea. But getting them (and social scientists) to actually publish on the topic is even more important. Yeah, Wikipedia policy may not, in the end, be enough to convince people to make the effort. But what can stand up in Wikipedia can also stand up in court and Congressional hearings.
It would be great to submit an abstract that looks at this from the perspective of pitfalls and how to avoid them. The whole CRU email issue went from red hot to tempest in a teacup because authoritative reports came out. Yeah, some bloggers and pols disagree. And there will always be a fight to determine how much space to give these ideas. But, most of the time, even these fall by the wayside once people have a little perspective.
Rather than using the talk to advertise for people to use Wikipedia as a venue for science communication, it might be useful to use it to address some of the ways in which Wikipedia (i.e.,t he community) functions as a consumer of and filter for science communication. It's worth looking at the impacts of things like Oreskes earlier paper, and Barbara Forrest's work, on the way that topics like these get covered. It's might also be worth looking at the (at least preliminary) reception of the PNAS paper. (I wrote this before I went to class, but didn't post it, so it doesn't reflect the discussion since your initial comment, it's just my opinionated take on the issue.) Guettarda (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah come on

You're more sensible that me, you know full well you shouldn't do this [37]. Also, I'd rather that section didn't degenerate into bickering - I'd like to get an arb to actually fix these problems, since some of them are (I hope) sufficiently blatant that even they won't be able to ignore them (I know...). So could you perhaps revert that out? It would be fine on my or your talk page, naturally William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I do not share your optimism about the final outcome, but since the comment has to do with you I have respected your wishes and reverted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If by "outcome" you mean the case overall, I hope I haven't expressed any. If you mean those diffs in particular, then I do allow myself to hope that they will correct egregious errors; though NYB didn't want to William M. Connolley (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shock_Brigade_Harvester_Boris&oldid=380584912"