This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

This user has opted out of talkbacks

Inferno Canto 3 line 9.jpg

shortcut to climate articles

a pretty good essay

A pocket guide to arbitration - under slow development User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris

A coloured voting box.svg This user believes that liberal democracy is the only legitimate form of government.
tpyo This user both inserts and corrects typos.
prog < 0 This user is an incompetent programmer.
Applications-ristretto.svg Warning! This user functions at a sub-optimal level before their morning coffee.
Vote 12345.jpg This user strongly supports the policies and views of political leader.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 08:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online



Boris needs KGB must structure fix

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

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

If you're looking for a chuckle

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

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

March 2009

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

Aww, don't spoil the fun, Mark! I was just breaking out the popcorn! (Check the history of Boris' userpage.) Awickert (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
heh...are you stirring up trouble, Boris? :-) R. Baley (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Ummmmmm. Oops! Carry on.... Mark Shaw (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Pietru ANI

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

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

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

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

Fasces and sickle

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

I guess the next problem is a severe one: if my right jackboot doesn't know what the left is doing, where can I go to seek asylum now? Antandrus (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
If right jackboot not being politically aligned with left then needing to arrest cobbler. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


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

Dang those liberals with their reality-bias! Although post-modernism used to be an idea associated with leftists... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The obvious doesn't need to be "asserted". Being that it's obvious and all. The right to doubt something and the right to have those doubts prominently displayed on someone else's webserver are two different things, though very few people seem capable of making that distinction. MastCell Talk 06:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Uh oh. you may have just taken that first, irrevocable step toward becoming Short Brigade Harvester Boris On Wheels... MastCell Talk 03:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Bourgeois hooliganism one of few pleasurable activities in this collective. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
SBHBOW? Hard to say. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
ShoBHoBOW? Even NASA couldn't do it. They'd scrap the mission because they couldn't make an acronym. Awickert (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
NASA has never scrapped anything due to lack of acronyms. I present for your consideration the Combined Operational Load-Bearing External Resistance Treadmill. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
...or change the mission name :-). Awickert (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, it isn't as if Ray-ray hadn't changed his name before, but I *like* this one. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusation

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

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

Nathan T 18:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Beer? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Holy schnizzle. That would be a sockpuppet ring to be proud of. I thought I was slick, since I operate this account along with User:Jpgordon, User:SlimVirgin, and User:Jayjg (see [2] for evidence), but that would be even more impressive. MastCell Talk 18:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Technically I've been here before. I just assumed you missed the orange bar ;) Nathan T 19:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It's that sig - he probably glanced at your comment and thought it was me, since I practically live here. MastCell Talk 19:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Or one of your sockpuppets. I've been tempted to register User:Legion before someone takes it.[3] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


I thought you were resigning but you were only re-signing :-) [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Golly gee, I forgot the hyphen. It's not like I'd ever do that on purpose... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Next, he'll say he's in retail (visualize the hyphen). --Skyemoor (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


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

... and sorry for vandalizing your userpage. I couldn't resist. MastCell Talk 23:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the DRAMAOUT is going just swimmingly, far and away better than one dared to hope. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
What, who thought that nonsense was gong to be anything more than a slush of empty public posturing, with a smattering of well-intentioned but naive participants? More Kool Aid is needed. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 02:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Your expertise is needed


I received an email:

Beautiful Russian Women Are Waiting to Meet You.
Online dating has brought a whole new meaning to finding your soul mate.
Your choices are no longer limited to the people in your hometown or county.

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

Boris never divulge secrets of whale wax under imperialist torture. Comrades in Committee for State Security visiting small violent Mexican dog. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Comrades and sockpuppers most diligent revolutionaries. (When I read Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian recently, I couldn't help but think of "Killer Chihuahua" in a completely different context.) Antandrus (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I am happy to have given your literary adventures a new aspect. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

Talk about assuming the worst! Rule 5 was a reminder to Stephan not to do anything that would reflect poorly on himself (see this link for further explanation). If you want to continue that condescending lecture about assuming good faith I'm all ears... just be sure to take your own advice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I completely misinterpreted this. I thought you were talking about this, which you linked higher in the talk page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The meaning is the same in both places. In future please be sure you know what you're talking about before you start flinging accusations of personal attacks and the like. I've looked at your history and you appear to have a habit of assuming the worst of people based on flimsy evidence. Not good. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Boris angry because he can no longer sound cryptic about Rule 5. Awickert (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the real rule 5. -Atmoz (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
So do I. But cabal secrets must be closely guarded. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no cabal, and this is not a secret message. 000393DB396E. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Neither is this. 66:6e:6f:72:64. Antandrus (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
57:65:62:65:72:6e:3f Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
4e:6f:20:63:61:62:61:6c:20:68:65:72:65:3f --GoRight (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
49:74:20:77:61:73:20:69:6e:20:74:68:65:20:63:69:67:61:72:2e Antandrus (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
WWVzIEdvUmlnaHQsIHRoZXJlIHJlYWxseSBpcyBubyBjYWJhbC4u --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
L5&AE<[email protected]:7,@;F\@8V%B86PN("!,;VYG(&[email protected]=&AE(&-A8F%L(2`@.BD`
--GoRight (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
6'9dFb"[email protected]@BJG'KP)&4*[email protected])'C[FL"dD'Pc)'Pc)(0KCQ8J,5"[email protected]"cGA*P)'PcELGd --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Y'all must not want me in your cabal. The secret decoder ring you sent me decodes everything as either "a prize-in-every-package" or "the more you eat, the more you want." -Atmoz (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
One is the dash, one is the dot. The Morse is to be interpreted by pronouncing the letters as in Hungarian and interpreting the resulting sound as backwards spoken Xhosa. But shhhhhh! Mum's the word! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Since you brought up sniffing, are you old enough to remember fresh ditto sheets? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Remember? I keep a stack in my coat pocket for those times when I get a bit stressed. A couple of ditto sheets and 25 mg of propofol, and I'm ready to go edit Clarence Thomas, or watch an ArbCom case. (Yes, I remember them. The good old days, when making copies was actually a form of physical exercise...) MastCell Talk 05:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec)... Our machine never worked properly. "The spirit was willing, but the flask was weak." I think I may still have some of those lovely purple pages in a storage room somewhere. Antandrus (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The Spirit duplicator article covers all the bases, including the Fast Times at Ridgemont High class mass-sniffing (something everybody in my age bracket did every school morning, perhaps accounting for a few things), and particularly finely crafted example of a dittoed newsletter. High Valley Seeking Contributions Toward Purchase of Computer (an "Exidy Sorcereror," in 1978!) and Garage Being Made Into Nature Center. Note also the commentary associated with the image file. Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

Que sera sera. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Darn it, now I've got that tune running through my head.
Suspect the hot air rising from from that arb case will only make global climate change worse. Antandrus (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hah, I wondered if anyone would twig to that. Actually I was thinking about the Mary Hopkin version; Doris Day is a better singer but for some reason I've always been intrigued with Mary Hopkin's voice. I'm attracted to a lot of performers who have interesting (to me) voices even if they aren't technically great singers.
As for the matter at hand, my views are here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
That's excellent, accurate, and very practical. It needs to be more widely linked. Antandrus (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating case. I'm listed, but apparently I'm not worthy of notification. And the criterion for being listed is edit count? Hmm. So the prior steps in dispute resolution must have been what - Tedder asking people to edit less frequently? Interesting guide to arbitration, btw. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I notice Boris is now listed twice... -Atmoz (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow - what sort of time frame is Tedder using? Waiting to see Uncle Ed, Cortonin and JonGwynne added as well. Guettarda (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The way Tedder has gone about this whole thing is just weird. It looks to have had as much thought put into it as my deciding whether to have ranch or italian dressing with tonight's salad. Something doesn't smell quite right. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I think he means well. He knows that things are bad and is just trying to take action to fix them. But he is badly in need of having a game plan I am afraid. He lacks any sort of statement of what the actual dispute is. He is just listing people who edit GW articles. Interestingly, the Arbs are actually weighing in with some level of "support?" --GoRight (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, SirFozzie has. Since my interactions with him have been considerably less collegial than my interactions with you, I'm curious as to whether he will actually participate. I'd guess "yes", but that would be a failure to assume good faith on my part. Guettarda (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I was a bit unsettled at SF being elected to Arbcom. They take on too many cases already without SF being in the mix. My comments here still apply. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
"Weird" is one way of phrasing it. "Like a brand new grad student who has never heard of research design" is another. Someone should explain to him that he needs to come up with your research question before he starts collecting data. Guettarda (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The cynical side of me strongly suspects the case was filed at the instigation of a third party. (I have some ideas who it may have been.) This would help explain Tedder's remarkably slipshod approach: since it wasn't his idea and he really didn't know the background, he just threw something together. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. Don't know the underlying politics and entanglements. Barely know who Tedder is at all. Guettarda (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

POCC and discussion

I hope I did a good job on this one,[5] 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.[6]

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.[7] Wordings important, especially for Gallup, because if you ask people if "scientists agree", people will think of one or two cases where they've seen disagreement and they'd report whether there's dissent rather than whether there's a considerable opposition to the consensus. It's a nuance, I know, but I got hit quite a few times on before. Thanks on the prose though. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to smooth out "believe that scientists believe" which (I believe) falls oddly on the ear. Overall the article is progressing well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what you mean. I changed it to "who agree that most scientists believe global warming is occurring." Anyways, if your interested, polls are starting to come out to measure Climategate: "This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called �Climategate� scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they�ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely."[8] Well that's the news. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Since the science is against them the contrarians are using the same as tactic as the creationists, and it's working. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The whole "I'm skeptical of x, but all scientists should be skeptics" language comes up both here and from the IDists. Same sort of "I'm not a scientist, but I'm doing your job better than you" implication. Denialism's denialism, when it comes down to it. Guettarda (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Hey Boris, got a question. First paragraph of "Science" says "[...]natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward." Shouldn't "warming" be variability? There was some discussion on GW, WMC replied. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


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

Ruth is stranger than Richard.[9] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Holy steaming fewmets. I presume you know about the Indiana Pi Bill, yes? Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Now now

I thought you were American and therefore a fan of "tautological repetitions" but apparently not [10]. You cannot just go around speaking correctly like that you have a national reputation to uphold. --BozMo talk 06:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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)


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)

Oh dear. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Seconded! *evil grin* --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
No prob. We aim to please. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

A splendid time is guaranteed for all. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)


[11] 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)

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)
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)
Why? Do you deny using the term? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
That's not a response to the question I asked. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Oh, okay, so it's a personal attack. I'm glad we've cleared that up. Cla68 (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Does Wikipedia Review actually have an affect on what goes on in Wikipedia? Cla68 (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This very section? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

Reasonable people

Re: [12], there is, of course, no shortage of unreasonable people, more's the pity. Mikenorton (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup. My favorite is this one.[13] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
How about this and this? AJRG (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
Great. Any reason why SCIRS is still an essay and not a content guideline? Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)

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)


  • Yes. Need help? Guettarda (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming that would be part of the "Pitfalls" session. MastCell Talk 02:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • Turn it into this? Do people really get those after getting their doctorates? NW (Talk) 04:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
        • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

  • 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)
    • 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)
      • Now Boris, you're falling victim to bourgeoisie ideas about "expert". You need to draw from your own experience, tovarishch. Guettarda (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Archiving warning

I know you're archiving your talk page, but I wanted to ask you to enshrine this discussion somewhere (or maybe I will). It's a personal favorite. MastCell Talk 22:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Unintended action of purge. Will be rehabilitated. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
nm, misunderstood -- that's one of the ones that I intend to keep. People have asked me why I don't archive and that's the reason: there's stuff that I want to keep around because it's particularly apt or amusing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not all have sinned and fallen short

To the best of my knowledge, I have never added a BLP violation to a single BLP, let alone edit-warred to include BLP violations the way ChrisO did. I asked that you provide diffs to the contrary and I note that you have not done so. I suggest that you end this line of accusations before you dig yourself any further into a hole. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And I asked you to read what I wrote. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah. A WikiProject whose stated goal is to "further the acceptance of cryptozoology amongst the general public." I see absolutely nothing horrifyingly wrong about that statement of purpose. Let's join. MastCell Talk 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that has to go. And has. Let's hope that doesn't become an issue. It probably will though :( NW (Talk) 21:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I kind of admire their honesty, actually. It's refreshing to see someone unashamedly express their desire to use Wikipedia as a tool of persuasion and promotion. I prefer that sort of candor to the usual fig leaf about just wanting to balance the unfair suppression of pro-Nessie sources. MastCell Talk 21:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Careful, you're edging close to getting a whole host of complaints from the "pro-unproven baloney" crowd telling you exactly how their situation is completely different from something like the Loch Ness Monster. NW (Talk) 22:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Are you calling the Loch Ness monster "unproven baloney"? I'll remind you that photos and sympathetic coverage of Nessie abound in the lay press. Are you saying that only peer-reviewed or scientific sources are acceptable, you SPOV-pusher? I mean, sure, "scientists" might reject Nessie photos as obvious hoaxes, but journalists, motivated by their greater integrity, commitment to the search for truth, and the democratic marketplace of ideas and maybe by the fact that their jobs depend on regularly producing sensational, attention-grabbing scoops have clearly determined otherwise. Who are we to say that one view is more "correct" than the other? We're just an aspiring serious, respectable reference work. MastCell Talk 22:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

� On a more serious note, we do need more non-scholarly sources on scientific articles. Clearly, the notable viewpoint of the Insane Clown Posse has been omitted - or more likely actively suppressed - from our articles on rainbow, magnetism, and giraffe. I mean, really: muhfuckin' magnets - how do they work? (There's independent secondary-source coverage of their viewpoint right there). Wikipedia is biased in favor of an SPOV, and against those who believe, like the Posse, that "magic everywhere in this bitch." This isn't a science textbook. Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope eloquently limned our encyclopedic ideal:

Water, fire, air and dirt;

Fucking magnets, how do they work?
And I don�t wanna talk to a scientist;
Y�all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed.

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

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

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

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

Lennon reference

OK, I've read this several times and still can't figure out the Lennon reference.[15] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You Can't Do That. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
There was me thinking it was bagism, shagism, this-ism, that-ism...  pablo 20:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was All You Need Is Love. -Atmoz (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The way things have been lately, going Cold Turkey on Wikipedia sounds better and better. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, you know it ain't easy these days. . . dave souza, talk 21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Whatever Gets You thru the Night. BTW, was this edit summary[16] meant to be a Lennon reference or was it just a coincidence? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Not meant to be a song reference specifically, though of course it fits. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Proposed Remedy: All reverts must be explained on talk page with a Beatles reference

[17] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Sorry !

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

No worries, these things happen. My favorite description of Rhodesians is that "Many people just aren't prepared for the willful disobedience and hard-headedness in this breed."[18] After all, they say people choose dogs who behave like themselves... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Is that why I loved my lab? :) I swear, if I had ever been robbed, he would have smothered the criminal with kisses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Boris, that's a horrible thing for you to say about people from another country. And nowadays they're called Zimbabweans. First they have to put up with Smith, then Mugabe, now you just pile on the grief. ...-- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Long live the cabal

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

The might of the nation was wielded by one; / Viva la Joe Stalin! / He ain't half beating the shit through the hun; / Viva la Joe Stalin! - the only source I know for this is Milligan [19] but he claims it was a common song William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
'Through every nook and every cranny the wind blew in on poor old granny' - Milligan Polargeo 2 (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow up comment(s)

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

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

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

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

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

Email sent to the secret mailing list Administrator

Forward the mail to at least member nr. 4 :) .Count Iblis (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no member number 4. There also are no members number 1-3 or 5-17. You must not expect a message by 1800 UTC tomorrow confirming our lack of plans for the issue not discussed in our previous communique, which was never sent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


Hello: In case you are having a bit of unfamiliarity with sockpuppetry allegations, you might consider reading this once [20], specifically this quote "The tool [Checkuser] should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute."
Your allegations, baseless at best, suggest that you are trying to put unnecessary pressure on me. TheEngineerAsk 05:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Obviously he has found out that you have really strong opinions on the spelling of Cricket Captains and use this allegation to squeeze him out of one of the areas where he has been mostproductive! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm impressed that EFV has cut and pasted the same warning onto my talk page as on your talk page. Especially considering that, if anything, I was defending EFV against the suggestion of being a sock. --Merlinme (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
To me, the question isn't so much whether this account is a sockpuppet (although the Bayesian in me thinks the pre-test probability is non-negligible). The issue is that we now have accounts which contribute nothing to content, and essentially nothing to productive discussion about content, and whose meaningful activity is entirely limited to wikipolitics and the deployment of sanctions against other editors. It seems to me that this is a horrible perversion of the founding ideals and goals of this project, but whatever. MastCell Talk 20:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The issue is that we now have accounts which contribute nothing to content, and essentially nothing to productive discussion about content, and whose meaningful activity is entirely limited to wikipolitics and the deployment of sanctions against other editors. Are you referring to EfV, or Lar? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
@ Mastcell, you miss the doubleplusgoodfullness of giving priority to making WP a delightful forum for polite and civilised discourse, free from such old-fashioned constraints as article quality. More to the point, who are these baseless alligators? . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
That's why he has such an acid temper.<ba-da-bing> Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Dave, keep in mind that article quality is determined by a review from one of your trusty Wikipedians (for GA) or a self-selected group of the same. It's not as if any outside opinions are relevant. So article quality is improved a lot if the potential reviewers all like you! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow looking at the contributions, it's astounding how many editors got this same warning as a cut and paste. Maybe a SPI should be initiated, any guesses? --CrohnieGalTalk 15:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I have a working hypothesis. But in the CC decision Arbcom made it clear that if there's any possibility of error in a sockpuppet accusation they will crush your sex organs with an industrial vise. So I'd rather not say at this time. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, an admin who erroneously acted on a sockpuppet accusation from an IP has undone the block, but as discussed elsewhere the temporarily blocked person apparently does not wish to pursue the issue. Clearly offputting biting of a newbie, hope it doesn't deter the newbie from future edits. . . dave souza, talk 16:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your talk page is screaming...

Hi, please archive me! :) Hope you are well, and it takes forever to download this page. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Hah! I'm tempted to post a pic. It makes my talk page look spartan. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
You don't need to post a pic, I've seen the disasters of desks by just looking at my own. :) Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin says...

The intellectual forces of the workers and peasants are growing and getting stronger in their fight to overthrow the bourgeoisie and their accomplices: the educated classes, capitalist lapdogs who consider themselves the brains of the project. In fact, they're not its brains, but its shit.

MastCell Talk 03:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment at BN

Hey there. Whether meant as irony or not, I think your comment about SandyGeorgia at WP:BN is inappropriate and the inference is probably not at all welcome in a time of already high stress in areas of the project where Sandy is involved. I don't speak for anyone, of course, but I encourage you to strike that comment and find an alternate way to make your point. Thanks --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I just ran across this factoid: "Stephen Stills scuffled with a drunken spectator who was heckling the band during a benefit performance at a 1969 nonviolence festival." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As Walter Sobchak said, "I myself once dabbled in pacifism. Not in 'Nam, of course." MastCell Talk 02:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Dude. -Atmoz (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Great movie. "Without a hostage, there's no ransom. That's what ransom is. Those are the rules." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

STFU Donny. ATren (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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

Did You Care?

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

"Accidentally"?[citation needed] MastCell Talk 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

A certain article...

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

Did you mean to do this?

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:William M. Connolley may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. Jan1naD (talk " contrib) 14:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Man. You'd have to have a heart like a rock cast in the sea to call that "vandalism". MastCell Talk 19:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Howcome Whyfor I never got it the cool sheet music? I have suffered, darnit! Puppy is all unloved. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's for puppy, on fine proletariat worker's talk page from Antandrus (talk):
I am touched!!! Antandrus, thank you so very much. (hissing at SBHB: see, SOME peeps appreciate the puppy!) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a capitalist ploy. See, he actually gave it to Boris, while pretending to give it to you. But no worries, I care. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This is glorious proletarian uprising! So much love from fellow comrades. Y'all can edit war on my page if you like. :-D KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think

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

Severe warning

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

Hi Mathsci, you didn't need to tell him like this. Next time just put a notice that his talk page is asking for a desperate archiving. It always works for me when I do it and it sounds a lot more friendly. ;) I hope you are well. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Crohnie. You might have forgotten to switch on your irony radar this morning :) For related matters, completely trivial in comparison, please see [23]. Mathsci (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
All problems are editor's own. If editor properly follow proper protocols, no such problem will exist. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Boris speak like member of Kabal. Is good. Mathsci (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

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


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

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

Oh, how jealous must your graduate students be

Blackawton, P. S.; Airzee, S.; Allen, A.; Baker, S.; Berrow, A.; Blair, C.; Churchill, M.; Coles, J.; Cumming, R. F. - J.; Fraquelli, L.; Hackford, C.; Hinton Mellor, A.; Hutchcroft, M.; Ireland, B.; Jewsbury, D.; Littlejohns, A.; Littlejohns, G. M.; Lotto, M.; McKeown, J.; O'Toole, A.; Richards, H.; Robbins-Davey, L.; Roblyn, S.; Rodwell-Lynn, H.; Schenck, D.; Springer, J.; Wishy, A.; Rodwell-Lynn, T.; Strudwick, D.; Lotto, R. B. (2010). "Blackawton bees". Biology Letters. 7 (2): 168–172. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2010.1056. PMC 3061190Freely accessible. PMID 21177694. 

Outdone by 3rd graders. :) NW (Talk) 03:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a paper that really should not be cited as "et al" - they all deserve equal credit! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

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

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

Personal attack

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

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

Your comments regarding me, LessHeard vanU

I hope you read this rather than summarily deleting it, but I recognise it is your choice;

I would rather have emailed you, but you do not have this function enabled - so I shall have to comment here.
You seem to have taken considerable exception to my comment regarding WMC and a list he maintains which (since I now know what is being referred to) contains links relating to me. I am at a loss to understand what particular aspect has so drawn your ire. Is it because I expressed my indifference to the possibility that I was on such a list, that I expressed myself in a vulgar manner, that I described that aspect of WMC's on-WP personae in a particular manner, or what I meant by "non scientific"? To deal with the last first, I was not intending to mean that WMC's viewpoint on CC/AGW are non scientific but rather I was referring to his viewpoints outside of the scientific subject of CC/AGW - although I am sure that your ability to parse English means that this is not the matter which concerns you. Neither do I believe that my declared indifference to the likelihood of my being on such a list to be reason for your repeated referrals to that comment of mine. It is either the use of a vulgarity in my speech or the use of a diminutive of WMC's first name coupled with an invented surname, or possibly both.
It is quite clear that the word "fuck" was not directed at WMC or any other editor, but pertained to my estimated worth or value of the fact that I might be on a list maintained by WMC. I may have just as easily said "whit" or "shit" or other common expression of little or zero value, but the terminology I use in real life happens to be the f-bomb - and I used it here. Although indelicate, it is not an uncommon word or indeed phrase to be found on the admin noticeboards. If it is a matter of using such a term then I am simply surprised that you should be so sensitive, and make such complaint about it.
This then leads to the last issue, where I used an "over familiar diminutive" of the name William, and appended to it another word which denotes a state of mind often associated with children; "Billy Tantrum". Did I use these words in ignorance of the fact they may have been found irritating or disrespectful? No, I did not. I used them to demonstrate my lack of concern upon the matter of who might of written what about me. It may not have been the wisest choice, in a continuing sequence of variable choices by me on this project, that I have made, but it is hardly an epithet by which my conduct in this one instance should be exampled as how one editor is treated differently from another. I have not referred to WMC by use of a vulgarity, as he has with others, his actions in demeaning phrases, as WMC has of other editors actions, or accused WMC of operating to an agenda by my comments, which WMC is in the habit of doing. I simply referred to WMC in a manner which does not confer respect, as has had WMC with me and many others, which may be considered as not being in the best interests of the project.
I really hope that you will read this section, if nothing else. This brings me to your own strident efforts to have an accounting on a perceived difference between how one editor is treated and another, in regards to me. I may indeed have been less than courteous with regard to an editor who has a record of personal attacks and slights against those he disagrees with, upon reading that he maintains a list of those he has disputed with and recognising the likelihood I was on it. My bad, and not excusable. However, how excusable is you referring to me as a jerk in some conversation on another editors talkpage? I was so uninvolved in whatever matter it was that was being referred to, that it was only by some third party notifying me by email that I became aware of it. I know that I never commented upon the issue before now, outside of my response to the sender, and I am fairly sure that it has not been brought up subsequently with you. Perhaps you had forgotten it yourself? It certainly has played no part in your recent efforts to have editors treated in equal measure for indelicate language. Perhaps now it should, you having been reminded? How equal are you contemplating, may I ask? Habitual derisive commentary and name calling, an example of the general use of a vulgarity along with a condescending diminutive, or referring to another editor specifically (and by extension a smaller or larger percentage of the sysop enabled editors on en-WP) with an extremely insulting vulgarity? Perhaps you should advocate equal consideration upon your own indiscretion in your future comments in these matters, or perhaps simply recognise that momentary aberrations might not be viewed in the same manner as habitual inappropriate commentary and conduct in regard to other contributors? Either we must all be held accountable, you included, for every indiscretion or we weigh frequency of the occurence of such instances and act accordingly. I am content to accept the decisions of those reviewing these issues, and I hope that you are too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you distill this tortuous rambling into a coherent point? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Why are you so sore at me saying "fuck" and referring to WMC as "Billy Tantrum" when you think it fine to call me a jerk? (I have just read the section above. I am prepared to redact this section if it means a quicker resolution of this matter. I would prefer you would redact your further reference to my indiscretion, but my offer is unilateral.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The good old tu quoque defense. Not very original I'm afraid. Tell me, are you still blocking climate scientists out of the blue on spurious grounds? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hypocrisy... Yup, that was the phrase I was looking for. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to look far. I assume there's a mirror in your bathroom. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hah - haven't had a good laugh in a while :-) Shot info (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
"He tried to determine if there was meaning in the fact that cloud shadows from moonlight could move across the mountains and yet nothing on the mountain would move or even be affected. He knew that all of them were shadows: the chanters, the dead, the living. All shadows, moving across this landscape of mountains and valleys, changing the pattern of things as they moved but leaving nothing changed when they left. Only the shadows themselves could change." Matterhorn: A Novel of the Vietnam War. Cla68 (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
And let's not forget�let's not forget�that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for domestic, inside the city: that ain't legal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Privet, Tovarisch

Interesting nicks and users on wikipedia are becoming more common. How cultured! --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (more detail: List of ships (The Culture) )

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

Isn't it time yet?

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

Oh by the way, can you explain what this means? "Perhaps another disengagement would be prudent." Is he asking for an interaction ban of some sort? Sorry if I'm being dense here but I don't talk to WMC that often and I never edit pages he edits so it doesn't make sense to me unless this has to do with what I had so say at the CC case. Thanks for the help, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lar asked for someone to talk to William in private. I have done so, just because I thought various people are using his innocuous and largely irrelevant subpage as a political football, to relive the close of WP:ARBCC. I did not really talk about the subpage: it was just a personal message appropriate for the time of year. I don't know William at all, but we come from the same background. For a long while Lar has exercised great self-control, but eventually that seems to have lapsed and he lashed out at random on Crohnie. I don't think Crohnie should take it personally. Things are a bit dysfunctional on wikipedia at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Mathsci, you say this so clearly and well. It does seem like things are totally out of control. I'm finding discussions at AN/i, AN and then the MFD, and of course various talk pages. I was tempted to talk to WMC about things but decided against it. He's seems to be under attack in so many different direction that I didn't want him to think I was adding to his stress. It's like there is a group doing whatever they can to make it so bad here that WMC either gives up or gets banned. I find this to be shameful. He's been an editor for a long time and has accomplished a hell of a lot more than I could ever dream of. You would think that editors like him would be wanted not thrown away. Well I'm babbling now but as you can tell, I'm very frustrated by all of this. I wish I could help but it seems that option has been taken away with the comment by Lar. Maybe Lar is angry with me for what I said at the PD talk page at the end of the case. I was then and believe I still am now an uninvolved editor though now I would have to put limitations on what I say since I feel that WMC has been wronged. Anyways, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not angry with you. I just think you are exceedingly confused and your comments often don't help matters in the slightest. Hence I think if you're doing more harm than good, you ought to step away. ... a lot of people ought to. You're not as bad as jps who is totally out of control lately but still... As a note, that input wasn't a "lash out at random"... Mathsci is a bit confused too. If you want to continue this discussion I recommend my talk page, where comments don't get censored or removed if they're inconvenient. ++Lar: t/c 23:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course all will become clear if you accept Assumption 1: Lar is always right, and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong and hence unhelpful. The validity of Assumption 1 is obvious if you are Lar, but less so if you are somebody else. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
As for SBHB taking up the admin bit again? I don't think that's a good idea at all. Perhaps after SBHB goes a few months without snarking? ++Lar: t/c 23:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps Lar should give up the bit until he goes a few months without snarking, neh? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You guys are so predictable. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd missed WP:ARBCC: do all arb cases get a shortcut, or only particularly exciting ones? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. X! made the shortcut way back in July.[24] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Friviolous WP:AN complaints

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

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

Hogmanay greeting

Whiskyhogmanay2010.jpg Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

3rr warning

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

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

By the way...

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

I like it though Meg White is certainly no John French. Yeah, they did a small set of Beefheart covers (dunno what it's called, would have been an EP back in the old days). Their version of China Pig was pretty cool. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Read the post, sad-twinged. Take your mother home to Mabel! Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What's a short brigade?

And why do you harvest them? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been meaning to ask that myself. Do tell. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a reference to a (hilarious) bit from Firesign Theatre Dear Friends radio series, 11 October 1970. Antandrus (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The skit is here. This is timely because TFT has collected all the old radio shows and remastered them, to be released next month. A bargain at $45. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I went to see them perform live in Hollywood once. Wonderful -- they were a blast. I want to say they did that skit, because it was so familiar, but I'm not sure -- it was a while ago. Antandrus (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I listened to the MP3 of the Firesign sketch, and the words sound to me like 'shock brigade' rather than 'short brigade.' This would fit with Boris being an especially productive worker. See the figure caption in the Agitprop article: "Hurry to enter shock brigades of an exemplary labor!" EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear. A request for username change may be necessary. I just received my copy of the remastered radio shows a few days and will take a close listen. Unfortunately my hearing is partly trashed from standing too close to the drummer in my younger days. What do other people hear it as? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


Re [26]: ha, good call William M. Connolley (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If the admins say it's Pseudoscience then it should be properly categorized as such, so that editors do not inadvertently run afoul of any restrictions on such topic areas. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems entirely fair to me. Of course, if there is any subsequent dispute as to whether the category applies, that would amount to admins settling a content dispute by use of their tools, which would obviously be a Bad Thing William M. Connolley (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
You know, I think this falls afoul of WP:ARBPS, specifically principles 15-17. Presumably Sandstein, Courcelles, Elonka and T. Canens must be aware of the case. Does that mean they should all be blocked without further warning? Guettarda (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • SBHB, can you tell me which admin abused their tool? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
All the male ones, I expect William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Use != abuse, although, of course, abuse requires use (or does it?) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Uses for purposes other then intended is possibly misuse, and with continuation it is abuse. (Sometimes it's just innovation too.) Where there any sources to support the content issues within which the admin was involved? Did the admin have a history in the article? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question opened

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

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


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

Not at all, it's on my colossal "to do" list. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
That's what I guessed and I completely understand; my semi-disappearance from WP these past months correlates strongly with bringing my to-do list back under control. Awickert (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


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

Shut the puck up, MastCell. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I seem to be out of my element. MastCell Talk 06:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Are you sure you want to proceed here [27], it may be an unnecessary disruption? You can withdraw any time to avoid this issue, I remain open to talk peacefully. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

All I ever wanted was for you to calm down and work constructively. I held off on the AE for a while, but you convinced me there was no other choice by doing [this []] and this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok ... why escalate? How about you agree to an interaction ban, where you don't delete my contributions and you don't participate in administrative issues where I am the subject. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
You've got it backwards, again.... YOU are the one who's doing something wrong, so you don't get to call the shots:
  1. You don't own your contributions. Anyone can delete or alter them as necessary.
  2. SBHB (and anyone else) has a right to contact you or approach you as a normal part of business here, and you don't have a right to tell them not to do so when they are acting civilly. That would be uncollaborative, and uncollaborative people don't belong here.
  3. Both of your comments limit SBHB and give yourself total freedom to do as you've been doing.... treating everyone here as an enemy. This isn't a battleground.
Brangifer (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Brangifer, I find your comment disruptive to my attempts for collaborative and peaceful resolution. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Zulu, I mean this respectfully, I think it might be best if you are in western Europe, that you take a break from Wikipedia and get involved in the day's activities, or if you're in the western hemisphere, that you hit the hay. This stuff really isn't very important. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Thanks old fruit William M. Connolley (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

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


Once again you're operating from the naive perspective that anyone cares about "damaging to the encyclopedia" as opposed to maintaining a vibrant and exciting social club. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC) [28] thanks for the chuckles, i might have to add that to my top 5 comments list, if/when i ever make one. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Worth reading, part 84

"At the end of the day it's not that Wikipedia is really that awful - it's mediocre, really bad in some ways and even occasionally 'good' in others - the problem is that it has such a monopoly in the market it serves."

Jet stream

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

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

For he's a jolly good Boris

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

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

A chance to review a met article during the FAC process

Numerical Weather Prediction is at FAC right now. You've made comments regarding articles in the past well after the review process has ended. This time, you have the chance to be a part of the review process yourself and make sure it's worthy of its status on here. You know how this will likely be on FAC for a couple weeks. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. Actually I don't know how FAC works, as I've steered well clear of it in the past. But the larger point is that I have lost almost all enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia. I wish you well with your article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I did take a quick glance and suggest off the top that you get rid of the UAM stuff, since that has nothing to do with NWP. I'd eliminate the material on wave modeling too; while interesting, it's something of a tangent. I'd go even further and suggest you keep this article completely separate from the one on climate models -- all of your discussion on accuracy, etc. applies only to NWP and not to climate projection, which is a fundamentally different problem. The public already has enough trouble confusing weather and climate (you know the good old "if they can't predict the weather next week how can they predict the climate 50 years from now" stuff). Also the statement "it is impossible for long range forecasts�those made at a range of two weeks or more�to predict the state of the atmosphere with certainty, owing to the chaotic nature of the fluid dynamics equations involved" is incorrect -- the chaotic nature means that we can never predict the atmosphere at any time "with certainty", even one minute ahead. All we can ever obtain are approximate solutions, which get worse and worse as time goes on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Yo Boris - I've helped on geology FAC's before, so I can offer some advice. Basically, you're an "expert" reviewer (well, I apply the quotes to myself, you probably actually deserve them). That means that you don't have to be the one who checks WP:MOS, etc., but you just have to check things for factual accuracy. My general way of working it is to go through the article in one browser window and edit the FAC page in another (though text editor may be safer - that darn "X"). I fix the little details that I can as I go through, while giving a play-by-play of more major issues I see and (often) suggestions of how to fix them in a bullet list on the FAC page. It's definitely time-consuming, but since we both want WP to be accurate, I think that a healthy vested interest (and excitement about the topic at hand) helps it happen. The one other thing I do is add refs when it's an area that I know about. Hope that's useful! Awickert (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I have deep misgivings about the whole FA enterprise and thus it would be hypocritical for me to participate in it. I hesitate to say this, because people I respect (SandyGeorgia, et al.) have put a lot of work into it. But as a matter of principle I'd rather not contribute to the FA process absent much-needed structural reforms. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Just yesterday/today I found it really worrysome that Tony didn't want to believe me that an entire section was completely wrong (i.e., over half a dozen statements constituting most of the section were just plain false) because it had been through FAC twice. In spite of the fact that FAC can clearly stand for "facts aren't compulsory", people think it somehow makes stuff true. This is the most worrysome case I've come across (edging out the huge inaccuracies of Hawaii Hotspot, which I sunk on its third try as it was about to pass, and for which I think User:Resident Mario probably still hates me... but whatever, it was wrong), and kept me up for two nights fixing it.
That being said, the FA enterprise is going to continue no matter what I do, so I figure that the more I bitch (I mean, constructively contribute) about factual accuracy, the better. Awickert (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
[unauthorised interjection] Yay, many thanks to Awickert, well done! A shift away from the focus on style over accuracy is overdue, every little helps. [coi � I'm a duffer at writing compelling prose, so biased] . . dave souza, talk 20:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Four words for you on prose-writing ability: I went to MIT. Lets commiserate :). Awickert (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Most of the MIT grads I know can write very compelling prose. Albeit only in Lisp. MastCell Talk 04:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I fail twice! I know no Lisp :(. Or Scheme :(. Python and some C/C++. And Bash, but that has no grammar anyway. Awickert (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Naughty naughty! Don't bash Bash - its a Turing complete language :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Fortran FTW :P Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
My Bash has no grammar. Awickert (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the check. Originally, other editors had asked for some additional information on the applications of NWP; as such, the urban airshed and wind wave models were added to the page. I understand your point and mostly agree with it, since going in depth into a lot of ancillary topics is a good way to write a textbook but a poor way of writing a Wikipedia article. However, maybe we could satisfy everyone's concerns by reorganizing the article to identify those as applications of NWP? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, having a distinct "applications" section would be good. Still, the UAM per se has virtually nothing to do with NWP and doesn't belong. Maybe replace it with a more general discussion about the use of NWP in the context of air pollution such as predicting the potential for stagnation events. The wave modeling is more relevant, in part because of the two-way interaction with the atmosphere (predicting surface fluxes in highly disturbed sea states is something that people are working on). Lots of interesting stuff about military applications you could add too. For example the Navy is just as interested in NWP over land as over water -- the way one of their guys explained it to me is that the ships sail on water, but most of their targets (at least in the present day) are on land. Again, good luck but I really don't want to be part of the process. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Splitting out an application section was a very good idea Boris. Thanks for the input. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • A question. How are air quality models and TC models, which are limited in scope and not global in grid size, different from limited area models? Curious. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the article was using the term "limited-area model" in two senses: one, as a synonym for a regional NWP model (which is the way the term has customarily been used, e.g., LFM), and then to describe these other applications. Of course a (dynamical) TC model is indeed a limited-area NWP model. Given that, I think the material on dynamical TC models should be moved to the section on "domains" and trimmed down a little. (As a general comment I'm not quite sure why the article gives so much attention to tropical cyclones as compared with forecasting of other weather phenomena. Nothing against TCs, which I am presently modeling as we speak write, but still...)

I've never heard of non-dynamical air quality models like the UAM referred to as "limited-area models," though I could be wrong. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably because the two of us who expanded the article were from the TC project. Still, that would constitute a point of view (POV) slant, which should be avoided, so we'll have to make it more well-rounded, somehow. There is an air quality model we use which runs off the NAM known as CMAQ, which I believe is dynamical. I'd have to look up more about it though. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
As I recall CMAQ has MM5 at its core, extended with lots of chemistry and so forth. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
CMAQ can accept inputs from MM5, but it can also use e.g. WRF-ARW.Hal peridol (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


I suspect you might be able to help with this. Where around here is the place for general discussion of articles about climate, please? (To be clear, I mean some page for high-level coordination of article editing, as opposed to pages where editors make accusations about one another's behaviour, which sadly is all that I've discovered so far.) I ask because I was browsing the list of "most wanted articles" and was astonished, given the age of the project, to discover Climate of Asia and Climate of Africa listed there. I would like to draw attention to these somewhere, as they seem to be such obvious and major omissions. I posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate, which looked promising from the page title, but given that the last comment before mine was over six months ago, it seems likely that I am looking in the wrong place. Many thanks. Scil100 (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WikiProject Climate is moribund, and was never very active to begin with. On the broader issue I cannot in good conscience recommend that anyone edit climate-related articles on Wikipedia. Better to write about your favorite band, a vacation spot, or something else like that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, which I will certainly bear in mind if tempted to do more than minor edits to climate-related articles. Disappointing, but given that (for example) this google search found this rather than what I was looking for (per my original question), I guess not ultimately terribly surprising. Scil100 (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(Just noticed that the last four words of my last comment were an unintentional acronym.Scil100 (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC))
Ha! Good one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Join Wikipedia!

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

Frighteningly accurate, it is. Antandrus (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Its kinda scary how true that is.... --Guerillero | My Talk 04:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


My thought was to put it right out there that WP:V is a farce. I think what you're saying is in the same vein, but I really would rather have the WP:V not aliased. Perhaps

is a compromise? Toddst1 (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wegman and GMU

Current events reminded me about something else. Do you know if anything is happening there? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Haven't heard anything, but then I haven't been making an effort to keep up. There are a couple of bloggers who follow the story. My guess is that GMU is in no hurry, and hoping that the whole thing will blow over without any action on their part. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
"The Wegman report called for improved 'sharing of research materials, data and results' from scientists. But in response to a request for materials related to the report,GMU said it 'does not have access to the information.' Separately in that response, Wegman said his 'email was downloaded to my notebook computer and was erased from the GMU mail server,' and he would not disclose any report communications or materials because the 'work was done offsite,' aside from one meeting with Spencer." ([29])

O tempora o mores! MastCell Talk 04:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm torn about interpreting our German affair - but on the upside, apparently there still is enough respect for academic achievement that people plagiarise to swindle themselves to a title. I suspect the mechanisms of both cases are parallel - political staffers with little knowledge of and no respect for academic work provide the input material that is then slightly massaged and passed off as brand-new insights by the "authors". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The Witch is dead. Took too long for comfort, but over 50000 signed the PhD student declaration and more than 1000 professors chimed in as well.... Interestingly enough, the PhD-Students used Google Docs and Facebook, the Professors stuck with manually processed email. Old farts ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Wie gehts? Herr Wegman will no doubt find it salutary. . . dave souza, talk 18:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
But without Baron zu Guttenberg, who will spearhead the push to rename the Brandenburg Gate after Ronald Reagan? MastCell Talk 06:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Baron von Monckhofen ? . . . dave souza, talk 21:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The glass is half-full

If it makes you feel better: "... hauling climate scientists before Congress and challenging their findings could easily backfire, as many representatives lack a sophisticated grasp of climatology and run the risk of making embarrassing errors." ([30]) It must be difficult to be so sure that scientists are wrong, yet simultaneously so totally ignorant of the basis for their conclusions. MastCell Talk 05:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The goal is theatre, not science. To those folks facts are irrelevant and being wrong is a badge of honor, showing that you're not a pointy-headed ivory tower intellectual. I have a thesis on the "revenge of the C students" which I hold as an explanation for the broad trends in modern U.S. politics.

The most interesting bit is the proposal aimed at "forcing Mr. Cuccinelli to open the books on his investigation of Dr. Mann." Speaking of openness, I have long thought it would be interesting to trawl through 12 years of emails from (names redacted) to see what precious nuggets might be revealed. "Climatgategate," anyone? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Have either of you read Richard Hofstadter's Anti-intellectualism in American Life? (Gah-- needs a better article.) While that was an analysis primarily of the McCarthy era -- and the long history preceding it -- it's really the same stuff, eroded by a few more wash and rinse cycles. For those with the loudest voices on the political stage, there's a pride in not knowing anything that ya havent larned yasself by a-workin wid ya hands, and this attitude goes way back (as the people who ran away from Europe 'yearnin ta breathe free' typically were only overachievers in the er, less intellectual endeavors, such as greed, exploitation, and rapine). Antandrus (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I am a big fan of Hofstadter's. The American Political Tradition is one of the few books that literally changed the way I think (granted, I read it at a formative age). Hofstadter is especially timely now - Anti-Intellectualism in American Life came up during the 2008 election, with its Palinisms and its assertion that Obama was "elitist" because he was visibly intelligent. And, of course, The Paranoid Style in American Politics is the definitive dissection of the Tea Party movement, even though it was written 45 years beforehand.

Boris, if there is a human being alive who could withstand the cherry-picking of 12 years of private email by his enemies, I haven't met him. I suspect that eventually, the private correspondence of the professional "skeptics" will be made available for public perusal by legal means (cf. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library), rather than by Russian crackers-for-hire a la Climategate, but who knows. It's a strange world. MastCell Talk 05:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Bringing it all back home there are parallels to an Arbcom case. Almost anyone would be sanctionable after a selective trawl through their contributions including this guy. In ARBCC there were editors sanctioned on both sides who shouldn't have been. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


  • Thanks... sincerely. And I hope this doesn't take away from the thanks, but could "explicitly included" be changed to something like.. ummm... "fully represented" or "completely defined" or "represented in full detail" or... something that suggests that the parametrization is, in some sense, a reduction/simplification? I realize that all models are in fact reductions and simplifications, but... parametrization is yet one more layer of abstraction... – Peacock.Lane 11:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

on either a global or regional scale

  • Hi. I kinda like "on either a global or regional scale" in the lede of NWP. No, I'm not being a petulant brat. :-) First, there is nearby, subsequent reference to "improvements in regional models". Second (and I may be dating myself here), the first thing I think of when I see the words "forecast the weather" is the local weather person showing a map of a three-state area; those global CNN maps are not the first thing that springs to mind... so "on either a global or regional scale" puts that info right up front, preparing cognitive spaces for later concepts. Thoughts? – Peacock.Lane 02:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm strongly of the opinion that definitions should be direct and concise as possible. The fact that the forecasts can be global or regional is not essential to the definition of NWP. I'd prefer that the definition sentence be very tight, and if we need to introduce the idea of global vs regional we do that in a separate sentence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that definitions should be tight. Note that I tightened it from its previous state. In this case, I would suggest that a mention of domain is in fact a part of the definition. However, I will see if there is a sentence between that one and the "enhancements" bit where this phrase can be introduced. Thanks. – Peacock.Lane 03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"Climate denial"

Hi. Could you please take a look at [[Koch Industries�]] (hist) and let me know what you think about this Greenpeace sourcing? Relevant talkpage discussion is here, fyi -- i know the article section needs cleaning up copy-wise, especially since it's meant to be a summary of the daughter article. Thanks. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing to the Grauniad is better than sourcing to Greenpeace per se. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


Boris, I generally have a very high opinion of you, but if you comment on AN as you just did without a proper look at the situation, or if you see that Ludwigs2 is right here but decide to go for his head anyway for political reasons, then I will obviously have to reluctantly revise my opinion.

The dispute is about stuff like the following, which some people insisted belonged in a prominent position at pseudoscience:

"Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to public health. Pseudoscience is a claim or practice that assumes to be scientific but lacks a scientific basis. Superstitions, beliefs that are irrational and usually involve cause-and-effect relationships that are not real, are categorized as pseudoscience and quackery."

The source for these three sentences was an article "Pseudoscience, superstitions and quackery threaten public health" from the British Journal of Psychology. The article very obviously deals only with medical pseudoscience, although it never makes the fact explicit.

I am sure you can see the problems with these sentences: Astrology, creationism and belief in the inadvisability of walking under a ladder or crossing a black cat are no more of a threat to public health than collecting stamps or using electric light. Also, since when are astrology and creationism quackery? Since the authors are very obviously not talking about pseudoscience in general, the paper is also an exceptionally poor source for a general definition of pseudoscience. (We already have excellent sources for this, from several philosophers of science, and of course the various attempts at defining pseudoscience are extensibly discussed in the article elsewhere. It's most absurd to insert just one of the competing definitions in a random spot, quote-mined from a source that is only marginally relevant, and to present it as the only, and absolute, truth.)

We as scientists at Wikipedia need to keep our house in order. I find it distressing when, for whatever reason, serious scientists support postmodern "skeptics" such as QG in their absurd attempts to fight pseudoscience with the tools of pseudoscience. Hans Adler 00:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel you're extrapolating a general statement of concern over the activities of certain editors on that page to draw a number of of unsupported inferences. I don't think that's something a good scientist should do. ;-) Specifically, where on earth did the business about "going for Ludwigs2's head" come from? That's truly a puzzle. To be honest I think that the 72 hour block (or any block) for Ludwigs2 was wholly unmerited, but that's Sandstein being Sandstein.
Anyway I appreciate your taking the time to comment. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
You certainly encouraged the anti-Ludwigs2 mob with your comments. Of course you are not responsible for Sandstein's temper, but you are in part responsible for derailing the thread. I didn't bother to contact the others who were more active in doing so, simply because I don't think as highly of them. Hans Adler 01:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Fads and Fallacies and personal attacks

Hi. Thanks for your message on my talk page. While I agree that in general it's best not to refer to someone's politics at all, the description "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" certainly does not apply here. Being a Green is not discreditable in my view or, I'm sure, in the view of most British wikipedians. I believe Greens support organic farming, with which too I am sympathetic. Gardner attacks organic farming, so I wondered whether WMC might admit that even in this limited respect Gardner was less than perfect. (He didn't.)

On the other hand, I am bothered by his personal attacks on me, such as I am beginning to doubt STG's good faith and I think you're deliberately trying to muddy the waters. The latter remark in particular is completely untrue, and occurred where I was trying to establish a rational dialogue with him, which now seems impossible. Since you've shown an interest in our interaction, perhaps you could advise me here. Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Solar energy

Would you consider Solar energy to be related to climate change? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally would not. But I'm also not Boris. NW (Talk) 22:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, maybe it would be safer to write about Solar. Incidentally, if you haven't read the book, you should - if only for the scenes in which the protagonist is confronted with a social scientist who argues that genes are merely social constructs rather than concrete entities:

Beard had heard rumours that strange ideas were commonplace among liberal arts departments. It was said that humanities students were routinely taught that science was just one more belief system, no more or less truthful than religion or astrology. He had always thought that this must be a slur against his colleagues on the arts side. The results surely spoke for themselves. Who was going to submit to a vaccine designed by a priest?

Anyhow... MastCell Talk 22:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
@ WMC: In the real world, not unless you were talking about something like this. On Wikipedia, absolutely and unconditionally yes. (Good insights from MastCell as always.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Boris, you make it sound like there are a bunch of unpleasant, obsessive "editors" continually circling William, eagerly waiting to pounce on him for any real or imagined transgression. That's just crazy. :P

In all seriousness, if you can link the subject back to Kevin Bacon climate change in d6 degrees of separation, someone will make the case that it's a climate-change article. MastCell Talk 01:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

@MastCell: Is Solar really that good a read? I saw read the first two chapters in the airport, and I was unimpressed—the novel seemed to drone on and on about trivialities that I really couldn't bring myself to care about, primarily the main character's miserable love and failing academic lives, I think. Did it get better? NW (Talk) 01:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, McEwan's books usually strike me that way - at first, they seem sort of boring, full of finely drawn but superficial observations. You keep reading them, waiting for something to happen - sort of like Chekhov, at least to me. And like Chekhov, it usually hits me later on that there's something going on under the surface. On the other hand, Solar is definitely not Ian McEwan's best. But then, I had read this harsh review before the book, and it arguably influenced my reaction. Certainly the reviewer summed up the book's flaws better than I could have.

I thought that the best parts were those which described Beard's amazement and incomprehension when confronted with postmodern ideas about science and reason. The themes of his personal failings and ultimate comeuppance were a bit tired, as the Times reviewer picked up on. Of McEwan's books, Saturday was my favorite by far, but there are worse reads than Solar. MastCell Talk 05:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you're still causing trouble

You seem to have gotten a touch more cranky these days. OrangeMarlin Talk" Contributions 00:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Stay off my damn lawn. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I just urinated on it. Too late!OrangeMarlin Talk" Contributions 17:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Just spent an hour reading your page. Yes, I have no life. Must move to Soviet Union. Has to be simpler there. OrangeMarlin Talk" Contributions 05:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I love being considered an authority, but

on your user page you allude to something I wrote about something. What was it? You've piqued my curiosity. For better or worse. -- llywrch (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It was excerpted from this thread. That was actually written by User:TransporterMan (see tag at the bottom); sorry if it wasn't clear. But I do agree with your view that one of the reasons for the falloff in participation is that most of the things that most people care about already have articles on them. BTW how the heck do you pronounce your user name? It looks vaguely Welsh, but maybe not. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh that thread. Actually, there I wasn't putting forward that theory (one of many variants of "all the low-hanging fruit have been picked"), but my other theory: that everyone who would make a good Wikipedian -- someone who not only is objective, intellectually honest, & enjoys doing research, but finds writing encyclopedia articles a fun thing to do on a Friday night -- already knows about Wikipedia, & either is a volunteer or was one.

As for my username, I pronounce it incorrectly; some day I'll meet with a speaker of Welsh who will help me solve that problem. Where it came from is a very pedestrian story: I had to create a username for my first Internet account which had to have 8 characters, & my first choice was too long. My eyes happened on the spine of a book across the room -- The Poems of Llywarch Hen -- & found that dropping the "a" I was able to make it fit. I've kept it since then as the label of my online personality: Google for "Llywrch", & any user account you find is mine, & everything posted under that name I've written. (Well, AFAIK. Don't know why anyone would make the effort to impersonate me.) And I've been using for far too long now to worry about privacy; that horse left the barn years ago. -- llywrch (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Truth and Neutrality

I like your new sig; very understated. Although it did trigger the regexp matching described here. MastCell Talk 19:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I thought it might be too subtle. We could play Wikipedia Bingo: fill in one square for a user name with "neutrality", "justice", etc.; one for a user who claims any disagreement with their views is a personal attack; a user who claims "it's been printed in a newspaper so you can't keep it out"; a user who complains of "blatantly NPOV" edits. The first one to fill in all the squares gets indefinitely blocked in a secret decree by Arbcom. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
That is almost as awesome as seminar bingo! Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


O I saw what you did there!!! Face-smile.svg - Alison d 03:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Aren't they cute? (It's my dog's birthday, not just April Fools.) The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Very cute!! ^_^ Better than the usual drivel @ ANI ;) - Alison d 03:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Inconvenient truths

I was curious what you thought about Muller's testimony. (You are still allowed to talk about climate change on Wikipedia, right?) It reminded me of this, for some reason... MastCell Talk 17:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still allowed to comment on climate change, though that can't last long once Arbcom figures out that I actually know a little bit about the underlying science.
The proper answer to the Berkeley study is "well, duh." I've got to hand it to Muller, though, for his willingness to change his mind when confronted by factual evidence. Most of the contrarians are constitutionally incapable of doing that.
Note that "Richard Rohde" who "recently earned a doctorate in statistics" is actually our very own Robert Rohde, who recently earned a doctorate in physics. There's no excuse for the reporter getting this wrong as the info was only two clicks away; she even linked the website in her story. By the lights of certain respected content contributors who are adamant that "major newspapers are indisputably classified as reliable sources under Wikipedia's guidelines, no matter what the topic is" we have to report that poor Robert Richard doesn't know his own name or what he got his degree in.
As for Curry, well, there isn't much to say. It's quite sad really. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Wait a minute? You and WMC, both of whom are scientific experts on AGW, are not allowed to edit GW articles? WTF is the place coming to? Oh never mind. I left for 2 years because of this. I see the polite POV-pushing crowd still holds sway over things. Meh. OrangeMarlin Talk" Contributions 18:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You managed to miss this fiasco? Lucky man. NW (Talk) 19:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Careful, you'll be compromising your neutrality soon William M. Connolley (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
@OM, actually I still am allowed to edit GW articles, at least for now. After all the project has magnanimously declared that "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." (You can almost see the gritted teeth through which that was said.) The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Boris: notice that Richard/Robert's name is attributed to Muller. So maybe he just gave them the wrong name - it's not unheard of for senior academicians to have trouble remembering the names of individual postdocs :P

Anyhow, we're just Wikipedia editors; we're not allowed to criticize things that have actually been published in print. The best we can do is present both sides of the story: While User:Dragon's flight's self-reported first name is Robert, he is generally considered to be named 'Richard' by independent, reliable sources. Let The Reader Decide! Any correction from Robert is, of course, self-published and a COI to boot, since he has a vested interest in his version of his first name. And when will Rohde naming controversy turn blue? Actually, given the prevailing mindset among climate-change editors, I should probably look for Rohdegate. MastCell Talk 21:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be getting harder to get away from that topic, but guess that source is invalidated as being part of the international conspiracy so brilliantly exposed by the blogs of retired mining speculators and the like :-/ . . dave souza, talk 21:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC) ZOMG wot nxt? . . . dave souza, talk 23:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"Expert editors are really vital and have a lot to contribute." Is it still April Fools' Day? MastCell Talk 23:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't heard of too many problems within WP:MED. It seems most of those editors, Tim Vickers comes to mind as an example, are willing and able to follow WP's rules and make an effort to work within WP's collaborative model. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
True. Of course, WP:MED editors have certain advantages over climate-change editors. For instance, there is no medical equivalent to the ongoing multimillion-dollar effort to spread FUD about climate change (the closest analog was the attempt to obscure the health risks of smoking, and then of secondhand smoke, but those both died off after the tobacco companies had to publish their internal documents. You'd probably recognize some familiar names in there, though). Nor have we dealt with editors who create 600+ sockpuppets while antagonistic editors circle, ready to pounce whenever the sock-identification rate drops below 100%. Nor have we been targeted by partisans with a public platform and a limited understanding or interest in Wikipedia's actual workings.

We have an excellent group on WP:MED, many of whom are admins doing excellent (and undramatic) administrative work in addition to content creation. For all of that, WP:MED editors have been involved in quite a few contentious issues. There have been a number of ArbCom cases, involving ADHD and abortion & mental health, among other topics. What has kept these disputes manageable, in my mind, is that they have avoided attracting the attention of the wider class of Wikipedians who follow the drama du jour. I've noticed that there is a group of editors who travel around the site looking for Great Injustices to fight. Their involvement is typically what turns a dispute from a burning twig into a forest fire. MastCell Talk 00:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not allowed to talk about the specific topic area, so I can't respond to your ideas of why it is different from the medical topic area, although I will say that I disagree that the collaboration model can't work there as well as it works in the medical topic area. I haven't heard of that group traveling around causing so much trouble. Have they been involved in any ArbCom cases? Were any of their concerns found to be legitimate? I'll try to look myself to see if I can find who you're talking about. In the meantime, I think Skip Hammond's "atomic domino" theory of chained power-plant explosions needs to be added to the Nuclear power article. Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Whoh -- maybe you have a sense of humor after all. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually sounds like a good idea MC. In the meantime, I might have to review Passive aggressive for some updating.23:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
@NW...I missed a lot of BS. Lucky for me, I always assumed that WMC and SBHB would take care of things. I'm wrong.OrangeMarlin Talk" Contributions 23:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

About blocks as punishment

See email first. Is this coming from somewhere or something particular? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no particular incident at play. In several major areas there is a divergence between what policy says and the day-to-day realities of the site, and I'm increasingly of the opinion that this divergence is not helpful. The homilies of "blocks are preventive, not punitive" and "adminship is no big deal" (to name two examples) are nice as ideals but simply don't reflect reality -- punitive blocks are routine, and adminship is a very big deal indeed. It's better for the policy pages to describe Wikipedia as it really is, rather than having to be read with an implicit "nudge nudge, wink wink." The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that point is worth examining in more detail with more eyes. But policies are to reflect the standards users should follow and I made the distinction clearer more recently to cater for that divergance. Obviously, if standards have changed, that situation may be true (but the last time I checked, people were still strongly against punitive blocks). But if it's a matter of people doing things they shouldn't, that does happen too often (which can also be argued as a day-to-day reality, be it personal attacks, edit wars, socking, etc), except that it eventually catches up with them in some form of warning or sanction. If some admins are evading that catch up, be it with the assistance of peers, former peers, or responsible users (who aren't doing what they supposed to be doing in such a situation), that's a matter of non-compliance, I think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Per a recent situation where an admin was able to significantly violate the "be polite/civil" doctrine on here which was focused on a self-proclaimed racist on the wikipedia (and supported for their actions), I'm slowly coming around to the viewpoint that either the rules are not meant for admins on here, yet they are meant for everyone else, or that the rules can be thrown out when someone is considered very, very bad, whatever that means. Minorities on here, beware. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You raise a tough question. There are some things that are simply abhorrent and have no place here, such as open support of racism or Nazism. But those things are at one end of a continuum that runs through to reasonable minority views. How can we deal effectively with the former without unfairly squelching the latter? If I knew the answer to stuff like that I'd be Secretary General of the UN instead of a science geek. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Vaguely connected, because I don't feel like starting a new section. Have you seen Wikipedia:What you won't learn in new admin school? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Main Page

Would appreciate your expertise regarding this: "The ozone layer experiences the highest level of depletion on record as a result of cold temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere last winter." which currently appears in the "in the news section" of the main page and strikes me as misleading. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, had a look at Sciencedaily and was wondering how to change the main page to "a result of cold temperatures in the stratosphere last winter" when lo and behold, it changed! Is WP now psychic, or a helpful coincidence when many minds check a problem? . . dave souza, talk 19:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has now become sentient. Be afraid; be very, very afraid. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the sentient bit is ok, the old hive mind. The terror from Boise is that misleading trash can make the main page due to inexpert reading of news items � but then if in it's in a major publication such as the Daley Wail, how can we resist? . . dave souza, talk 19:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
That's wot happen when any old amateur fule can edit it � wot think you? Srsly my phrasing's prolly awful, but methink the sense of it's improved. Expert advice will be much appreciated. . . 19:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's OK given the constraints of the venue. My most serious concern is that while this is clearly labeled as Arctic ozone, it isn't specifically contrasted with Antarctic ozone which is what one usually means when referring simply to the ozone hole. I would bet that >>90% of non-expert readers won't recognize the difference (what's 20,000 km between friends, eh). But given that ITN is essentially a headline service there isn't much room for nuance. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, the current version has been further tweaked and now has a link to arctic so those curious enough to follow it up might get an inkling. At least it's probably better than the previous impression that it was a worldwide record depletion. . . dave souza, talk 21:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
You done good, as we say in the Midwest. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A change of tune

A climate change denialist returns from the dark side. OrangeMarlin Talk" Contributions 23:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to call Muller a denialist, because whatever his pre-existing convictions, he was able to revise them when presented with additional data. That's as reasonable a line between skepticism and denialism as any. The reaction to his testimony is telling, if unsurprising. Considering how often one hears climate science described as a "church" of AGW, it's interesting to see the "skeptics" rush to excommunicate the heretic in their midst rather than grapple with the substance of his testimony. MastCell Talk 23:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I just have a hard time stomaching the descriptive of "skeptic" to global warming denialists. I think skepticism has been traditionally reserved for scientific debunking of pseudoscience. It shouldn't be used as a term for those who have political or religious motives. Creationists should be called "evolution skeptics." Muller is a real scientist. He reviewed the data and determined there was something there. I actually was a global warming denialist until some cranky scientist, Dr. Raymond Arritt, had an opportunity to beat some sense into my brain. OrangeMarlin Talk" Contributions 06:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Randy thoughts

See you've been chipping in, have added my own slightly convoluted tuppenceworth with a convenient link to In praise of& academic Wikipedians, Editorial The Grauniad, Wednesday 6 April 2011. . . dave souza, talk 17:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have responded (not too randily, I hope) there. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail redux

This is priceless. Click it 10 times and report your favorites here:


Wanted to make sure you saw this

From my talk page:

One possibility is to put more emphasis on editor retention. Jimbo has always shown far more concern for attracting new members than retaining current ones; at times, I have almost had the feeling that he takes a "bring 'em in, use 'em up, spit 'em out" philosophy. I'm not saying that we should abandon efforts to recruit new editors but that we should also pay some attention to retaining those who are already here. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no truth to what you just said at all. Let me be 100% clear about that. First, historically speaking, it is absolutely false that I have "always shown" far more concern for attracting new members than retaining current ones: precisely the opposite is probably my greatest failing. Where on earth did you get that idea? Second, the bit about "use 'em up, spit 'em out" is so wildly at odds with my personality and actions that I feel you didn't stop for two seconds to think about what you were saying before you insulted me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A new template for widespread use

Inspired by the high standards of integrity set by our political leadership, and by a fellow Wikipedia fan, I have created the following inline template: User:MastCell/NITBAFS. Clearly, many areas of Wikipedia are crying out for immediate and widespread application of this template. I think it will be a constructive and valuable addition to the project.[Not intended to be a factual statement] MastCell Talk 18:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You're very diplomatic. I also admire all the other editors in your area of expertise.[Probably bullshit] Antandrus (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Gotta love something called NITBAFS. Anyway it brings to mind Ron "This statement is inoperative" Ziegler as well. Now I'm going to be muttering "nitbafs, nitbafs nitbafs" all day. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Catchy, right? I was thinking that if it's good enough for matters of national political import, then it should be good enough for medical discussions. "I think your chance of cure is more than 90%." "But the other doctors said it was closer to 3%!" "Ummm... right. That wasn't intended to be a factual statement." Accountability accomplished! MastCell Talk 21:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


I officially nominate this comment as the best piece of psychoanalysis ever written in Wikipedia. Obviously, the Gulags need to hire him to train the medical staff. OrangeMarlin Talk" Contributions 07:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Pay it no mind; it's just Cla68 doing what Cla68 does. Not to worry as Newyorkbrad (one of the good guys on Arbcom) has his number (see the last sentence of NYB's comment here). The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I honestly forgot (purged the bad experience from my memory?) that the case actually lasted four months... And that despite all these ridiculously short deadlines for evidence (in the middle of the World Cup!) Ahh, the good old days... Guettarda (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems I missed a lot of bullshit while I was gone. OrangeMarlin Talk" Contributions 15:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That, my friend, is the understatement of the year. Be happy you did miss it, and all the crap that preceded it. Guettarda (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I hope you don't think I posted this here for whining purposes! Boris' stage is like the Kremlin...many intrigues, and everyone watches. Now an online bible I find must.OrangeMarlin Talk" Contributions 15:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't be so hard on Cla68. He wasn't personally standing behind the diagnosis of Asperger's. He was just repeating something that he'd been emailed about other editors, without checking into its veracity or plausibility. It wasn't intended to be a factual statement. Just pretend that he wrote it on Glenn Beck's blackboard - it may or may not be true, but isn't it important to ask the question? MastCell Talk 16:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, so the requirement of verifiable sources does not apply here. I hate it when I misunderstand Wikipedia rules and regulations. OrangeMarlin Talk" Contributions 18:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Nope, little in arbcomm proceedings is actually meant to be factual statements. cf "Findings of Fact". Guettarda (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
You paint with too broad a brush, comrade. The Findings and Principles that arbcomm expressed here are unarguably sound. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
You can't paint a building with the same brush you use to write on rice grains. Sometimes a broad brush is needed. Sometimes it just saves time (think how much more quickly Michelangelo could have painted the Sistine Chapel if he'd just used a roller... Guettarda (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Climate sensitivity

Regarding this edit, you forgot to add...It can be used as a measure of the number of climate change "skeptics" who will be offended by any given use of the term "denialist". Guettarda (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A touchy label. Disclaimer: any resemblance to any parsons livid or deaf is entirely coincidental. I assume no WP editor denies AGW. . . dave souza, talk 21:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

CRU maintenance

I realize the terms can appear ambiguous or imprecise, but they are used in this context: Instrumental_temperature_record#Calculating_the_global_temperature. So both Wikipedia and the secondary sources use the term "maintained". I should point out that this word is used quite a bit as well and I believe it was correct based on it's usage. In other words: "There are two main global temperature datasets, both developed since the late 1970s: that maintained by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia [3] and that maintained by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.[18] Both datasets are updated on a monthly basis and are generally in close agreement." Is that wording incorrect? Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by a "dataset." CRU and GISS perform analyses of data; they don't maintain the basic data per se. I think it would be much clearer and more precise to say "there are two main global analyses of surface temperature data, both...(etc)" The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The data is maintained by CRU and GISS (and NOAA). I don't see a problem with my wording, which I specifically confirmed and verified in three secondary sources before I added it. That's my own personal litmus test that I use when I add material; I always do research before I write. The secondary sources support this statement[31][32] (loads more where that comes from) and while we both agree that SS can be wrong about this kind of thing, it is also supported by the specialist sources. I think you are reading it in a way that is different from the average reader and/or source. For only one example, in 2001, the National Research Council (representing members from the NAS, NAE, and IOM, with support from NOAA) wrote:

Several research groups around the world, including NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, collect and maintain databases of both historical and present-day meteorological data and use them to produce estimates of regional and global climate change.[33]

I hope that helps clarify. I'm starting to think your objection is primarily due to the informal nature of the language. I realize that it might not be ideal, which is why I appreciate your input. However, this is the style used by the sources. That CRU is said to "maintain, update, and regularly analyze the best-kept set of global temperature records in the world"[34] is reflected by the best sources available. Perhaps you could improve that text further, but I think the word "maintain" should be added back. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm a fan of precise language but I'm not going to argue with Tom Wigley... What I was trying to get away from is the idea that CRU (or GISS) maintains the raw data and provide access to it. That's the job of the WMO and the individual national agencies, and I was trying to get that idea across by distinguishing "data" from "analysis." "Data" is an unfortunately broad term, but I guess we have to use it if that's what the sources say. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but aren't you reading more into the term "maintain" than is already implied? If you don't think it belongs and could be misread, let's leave it out for now. IMO, the term is being used to imply the simple act of database administration. You seem to see it differently. As you are probably aware, a DBA has little to no input on the nature of the raw data, which is consistent with your concern. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Agree that Instrumental temperature record needed improvement, so had a go at it.[35]
HadCRUT is a combined analysis in which CRU compiles land surface temperature records, and the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research sea surface records. Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets lists several such datasets and says climate data is distributed through The British Atmospheric Data Centre, one of the NERC Data Centres.
Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets shows the HadCRUT3 dataset, describing it as a collaborative effort and giving download links. The CRU site is gradually being restored, and also offers downloads.[36]
The source cited in the instrumental record article describes CRU's work as "the production of the world's land-based, gridded... temperature data set..... In 1986, this analysis was extended to the marine sector (in co-operation with the Hadley Centre, Met Office from 1989).... the first truly global temperature record" Bold by me.
The land temperature records CRU compiles are those held by the Met Office and other national Met Offices, each of which lets CRU have use of the info for academic research only, commonly with a requirement that they do not pass the raw data on to others. . . . dave souza, talk 08:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Support neded against the bourgois counter-revolution!

A call to arms! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. The Bolsheviks took a hard line toward canines with monarchist sympathies. After all, the Grand Duchess Tatiana's terrier, Ortino, was liquidated along with his owner as a potential nucleus of anti-Soviet agitation. I doubt that Otto, First Dog Middleton of Cambridge will fare much better when the dictatorship of the proletariat arrives in Albion. MastCell Talk 22:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It was a funny idea, which seemed to have gone over a few of the supporter's heads. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Comrade Andrwsc being commended for political acumen.[37] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


Interested in developing this proposed policy further? Count Iblis (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, however I'll pass. Well intended but I don't think it has a snowball's chance. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if others are interested. There is a lot of room to compromize (thershold for RFC approving election, how to hold elections etc. etc.), so the nay-sayers would have to be quite ideological about not allowing some significant fraction of Wikipedians to get something done. I suspect that while you may have a deadlock on some issue, you can still have a consensus that the status quo is not acceptable. You may then have 2/3 majority for elections to be held on that issue (the current proposal says 50% support is necessary). Count Iblis (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, SBHB

Thanks for noticing the advert issue in Microsoft Forefront. I resolved the issue by making sure that all sentences are from a neutral point of view. However, if you still think there are some cases, you drop a me a note or talk about it in talk page.

Fleet Command (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


Isn't that interesting. I'm sure we'll be hearing from all of those vocal advocates of integrity in research who came out of the woodwork after "Climategate". I mean, otherwise they'd just look like a bunch of ignorant partisan hypocrites. Heck, this was federally funded research - Ken Cuccinelli should be filing charges as we speak. MastCell Talk 20:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Apparently my English is not as good as I thought. To me, it seems as if Wegman excuses the plagiarism by pointing out that the text was not actually by him, but provided by a student he did not credit. But that's so obviously implausible that I must get something mixed up... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
A certain Person Who Must Never Comment On Climate Change has a good take on the story here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This just in: the USAToday editorial on the woes of Wegman notes he was criticized for "use of unreliable sources, such as Wikipedia." My respect for McPaper just went up a few notches. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Into the abyss. Odd reaction from North, who seemed to me to have been stitched up at the hearings and said around that time "This issue is so polarized politically that it is impossible to simply inform the elected representatives. I was definitely under the impression that they were twisting the scientific information for their own propaganda purposes. The hearing was not an information gathering operation, but rather a spin machine." Meanwhile, are others heading for a Fall? . . dave souza, talk 23:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. Begs the question of why wasn't this "Asian student" listed as a co-author if he or she wrote such a large part of the paper? But the most interesting question of all is, how much longer can GMU stonewall on the "investigation" they're supposedly conducting? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • On a somewhat related topic... was that you representing in the background here? MastCell Talk 05:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
That's brilliant. On the other side of the coin, reading this makes me depressed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Reading WuWT generally is depressing... especially the commentary section. The YT video is great though :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the video is great! I'm working with Jason (Evans) on a project and will ask him about the story behind the video. As for the Wegman retraction, the response from the tinfoil hat brigade is hardly unexpected. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Anthony Watts is justifiably upset. You see, he believes that it's reprehensible for an anonymous Internet coward to try to tarnish a scientist's credibility. This belief seems to date from sometime after "Climategate", but I'm sure it's quite deeply held regardless of its novelty. MastCell Talk 16:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Anything to stop User:Arthur Rubin from deleting other's User Talk?

Anything to stop User:Arthur Rubin from deleting other's User Talk? User:Arthur Rubin (wp:Arthur Rubin) continues to hide other's Talk, this time on User Talk:Zodon ( []) ... on March 30th 2011 it was User talk:Granitethighs ( [] ) and User talk:OhanaUnited ( [] ) (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not look in any detail, but superficially those seem like obvious violations of WP:TPG. You can report it to your friendly local admin or to the local nuthouse for further action. Be aware that if you do so your own editing will also come under scrutiny. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
After Trusting but verifying, Admin Arthur Rubin has been found a disingenuous communicator. Only Mr. Rubin's actions speak (Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin), not his Talk. (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
If of interest, more ... [] (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Read WP:TALK. Basically any editor can remove edits on talkpages if they aren't germane to improving the article. Most editors don't do this to other more established editors, but IPs come under greater scrutiny. Can I recommend you get an account? And also view talkpages as a place to discuss how to make an article a better place. Shot info (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I finally figured it out!

It's a sleeping doggie! Every time I came here I was trying and failed to figure out what it was a picture of, and the description wasn't helping me.  :-) — Coren (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the same breed of dog as mine. Actually Bonnie is only half Rhodesian, but her temperament is fully consistent with the breed (with all the good and bad things that implies). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ocean acidification misunderstandings with chemistry, carbon, and the usage of organic and inorganic ...

How do I get an editor who understands the difference between organic (carbon in molecule) and inorganic in Chemistry, and "organic" and inorganic"'s other current means in the article Ocean acidification. Two editors are editing the article inaccurately to say "inorganic carbon cycle", which is impossible as a carbon cycle would have carbon in some molecules. Is there a list of editors to call-in who understand this? If you don't know, do you know who might? (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It is common to separate the oceanic carbon cycle into an organic cycle and an inorganic cycle. So there is indeed such a thing as the "inorganic carbon cycle"; see e.g., here. The two don't strictly correspond to "organic" and "inorganic" in terms of organic and inorganic chemistry but it's a convenient shorthand. For a reasonably accessible overview you can try here. Hope this helps. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of ban appeal

Hi. In case you are unaware, GoRight (talk · contribs) has made an appeal to BASC which has been forwarded to the Community for discussion. I am notifying you as you participated in the ban proposal (which was enacted and is now being appealed); you would have some awareness of the context which led to the measure being imposed. Your input would be appreciated at the discussion: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#GoRight ban appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see NYB has told us to stop wasting our breath (though not in those exact words, what with NYB being a genuinely nice guy). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


Regarding your comment in the unban discussion, I don't believe that Arbcom think of themselves as very powerful. What you should be looking for is a change in policy, which needs hearts and minds. I assumed you knew this -- you are after all the author of the celebrated User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration. Your account has many realistic details, but I think you may not have fully taken note of the caution that limits their actions. I believe the Arbcom would adjust their behavior if the community changed their attitude regarding the things that User:Tom harrison/concerns mentions. EdJohnston (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. But I don't really know what motivates them, and suspect that each arbitrator has their own motivations. They sometimes remind me of teenage boys: individually they can be engaging conversationalists and can surprise you with their insights, but as a group they can make a real mess. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
There are usually one or two Arbs in a given cohort who leave me shaking my head and wondering how any one human being can be so lacking in common sense. But as a group, good sense usually prevails. Since at least 2008, there has been a majority of sane people on the Committee. But I can't be too critical - I think they have an impossible job, and I don't envy it at all. In a best-case scenario, 50% of the community will criticize their stance on a given issue. In more typical scenarios, nearly 100% find some fault in their actions. MastCell Talk 04:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny in a sad sort of way

Hello, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Come on big boy

Don't let the bozos get you down William M. Connolley (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear WMC, I trust you're not discussing anything anticlimatic.
By a remarkable coincidence, I've noticed some edits which seem to have caused distress, and have tried to overcome unfortunate confusion. As a complete non-expert, it's entirely possible that I've got it wrong. Such is the way of the Wiki :-/ . . Randy from Boise, talk 18:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I was merely commenting on Boris's homepage edit; I'm afraid I'm unable to comment on your edit William M. Connolley (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, just me jumping ahead. . . Randy from Boise, talk 19:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please come back

Please don't retire! Yeah, I messed up the lede on greenhouse effect, yeah I didn't read the whole article before trying to edit the Lede. Am I an intentional Randy, or did I make an honest mistake that I feel bad about? If you leave now, you won't know the answer to this. Believe it or not, my intention though misguided was to de-Randyize that Lede. It lacked citations, and it said something contrary to what I thought I knew.... and since I've read a ton of science oriented MSM on the issue since the 80s I falsely concluded the unsupported statement (real greenhouses vs atmosphere) was crap. Well, I was surprised to learn I was wrong. The three graduate degreed and climate conscious friends (experts in other research fields) I asked said the same... they too were surprised to learn about this distinction. Hopefully you can cut me some slack.... something so surprising despite an effort to be well read for a layman, with no citations, seemed like a Randy like attempt at disinformation. I edited it incorrectly, but the result (thanks to corrections by D.S.) is much improved.

Please come back! The climate pages need your input and I try hard to admit mistakes and clean up messes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@ NewsAndEventsGuy: Oops, sorry I've been a bit sarky here, but I now appreciate from looking into this a bit further you've been acting in good faith to try to improve climate related articles with due weight to mainstream views. We all have misunderstandings at times, and willingness to accept that and learn from it means you're not following the Randy pattern. It's great to get expert input, but unrealistic to expect a lot of time from people with professional careers in the topic area. There are other very knowledgeable editors, and I'm sure that with your assistance we'll all be able to maintain and improve articles on this subject area. That includes rank amateurs like me! . . dave souza, talk 18:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Stay away for a good long time - you'll be all the better for it. Tom Harrison Talk 01:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you back tovarish. Babakathy (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

OMG see #5. Good to see you editing again, anyhow. MastCell Talk 16:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hah. I'm not really here, I just stick my nose in the tent once in a while to make mischief. BTW I assume you've seen the Purloined Letters? No real surprises there; for the most part it simply confirms prior observations and inferences. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. It's surprising how unsurprising the contents are. It turns out that people behave in private pretty much exactly as you'd predict based on their on-wiki behavior. I would say that after glancing at the leaked emails, I gained a bit of additional respect for some Arbs whom I already respected, and lost some respect for people whom I'd already pretty much ceased to respect anyway. The irony, of course, is that the closest real-world parallel is "Climategate". There aren't any bombshells in the emails, just a few people talking more candidly than they do in public, but some people feel the need to manufacture a scandal because it serves their agendas. MastCell Talk 03:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Verifiability hasn't been established in regards to Beaver's role. The citation provided was a circular link to another Wikipedia page. Before you use Wikipedia as an internal reference, you might want to look the the following article: WP:CIRCULAR. Please discuss further changes on the article's discussion page first to avoid potential misunderstandings. The Three revert rule, WP:3RR, applies to everyone.

regards, -- User:LeeUSA (talk) 30 June 2011 � Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeUSA (talk " contribs) 04:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but how exactly does "Films in Review, Volume 28, Number 5, May 1977, pp. 265�284" correspond to a "link to another Wikipedia page"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The reference was prefixed with Jim Beaver, Jim Beaver's reference makes a circular route back to John Wayne's. Nothing supports the reason why Jim Beaver is cited on John Wayne's page at all. LeeUSA (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wot no fucking kittiez?

DSCN1966 crop.jpg DeathStar
We love you Boris! Return and lead us to the Glorious Future. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting you should mention teh kittehs. Though I haven't yet been able to make heads or tails of the instructions, it turns out this wonderful new feature that the Central Committee has foisted upon us is customizable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes indeed, it is practically begging to be sabotaged William M. Connolley (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Try this in your vector.js:
$.wikiLoveOptions.types.kitten = null;
But remember that every time you set a wikiLove type to null, God kills a kitten. MastCell Talk 03:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


Per your comment here, I wonder if you'd care to elaborate. As someone coming at this from the opposite end wrt experience and education, I'm rather keen to learn and correct any mistakes I've made. I'm also interested if you have any comments that would improve WP:MEDRS. ColinTalk 07:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Speaking as someone who actually writes papers and abstracts, reviews articles, and edits journals, the conversation above blows my mind." I do all these things too as it happens. So what blows you mind? The comment is not helpful unless we have some idea of what you find stupid, brilliant, bizarre - or whatever it may be. Paul B (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Perceptive user page

If I were an actual wiki-lawyer, I would refer my clients to: User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration. Cool Hand Luke 21:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully current arbs will also read [38] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you collecting? [39] is good, too William M. Connolley (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edit for Astrology

I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.

The proposal is here.

Thanks, -- Zac talk! 15:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia Review

True it is that the egregious Wikipedia Review exists but if we ever get to a situation when it is regarded as the standard by which acceptable discourse is judged, then we are lost. However your mention of it does prompt the recollection that JzG can now see what exactly I was writing about him in private. I was rather hoping that after, on Arbcom, playing Severus Snape to his Harry Potter, I might get some recognition. I don't expect to find he has named his child after me, but I do at least hope not to be inaccurately attacked on Twitter. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


Well of course he's a sock. Unfortunately, I've only been editing the Astrologogy article for a week or so myself, so I can't associate him with anybody. There's not a lot we can do about it, except watch. If he's been blocked before, he'll eventually make the same mistakes and we'll be able to get him blocked again. Until then, be vigilant! Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Toxic Triad?

You mentioned that on WT:V, so made me curious to find out what it means (in Wikipedia context), but there doesn't seem to be any essay or the like on it... [[User:Have m�rser, will travel|Have m�rser, will travel]] ([[User talk:Have m�rser, will travel|talk]]) 00:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this. "Verifiability, Not Truth." The 'toxic triad' label is my own invention. Pretty clever, huh? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It seemed to me a bit overstated, until I read this. [[User:Have m�rser, will travel|Have m�rser, will travel]] ([[User talk:Have m�rser, will travel|talk]]) 08:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


Come on, you should come back to editing. Look at it this way: if we don't keep up the quality of Wikipedia's climate-change articles, we're going to hurt all of those climate skeptics who copy them without attribution. You don't want to make them look bad, or worse, make them do their own writing, do you? :P MastCell Talk 23:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Free as a Bird" proposed lede change

FYI, there is a vote taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. � GabeMc (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Jimbo agrees with you about something

[40] Cardamon (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that truth matters - wow. And how sad that it needs to be said William M. Connolley (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
You're obviously new around here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Ha! It's saddening and maddening, isn't it? The whole "verifiability, not truth" thing was originally intended to keep a lid on fringe crackpots by politely explaining that their Truth wasn't the only way to look at reality. Now, it's used as a bludgeon to include all manner of craziness—we have to treat the latest cold fusion scamscheme as a credible possibility because a Swedish tech writer (who usually reviews cellular phones) got suckered into printing stories about a crazyeccentric old Italian inventor who's on his third green-energy company. Argh. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Astrology

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[41]]. Thank you!Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Disgusted and/or amused

I heard "(The Angels Wanna Wear My) Red Shoes" on the radio today and it reminded me the quote you used to have on your userpage. Are you ever coming back or what? MastCell Talk 05:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, I was just thinking about Elvis C. over the weekend and how I should reacquaint myself with some of his better stuff. Anyway, I never exactly left. I rarely do content work because it's not much fun; even in uncontroversial topics I'm just not that interested in contributing to this place. Once in a while I make a comment on something if I think it's truly important. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Page move

AnomieBOT kept trying to date the maintenance tags since your talk page had become an article after your move. It worked. Please don't do that again. — Coren (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So it didn't realize that this was still my talk page? Sorry, I thought the software was more "clever" than that (or whatever the appropriate technical term is). Thanks for moving it back. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't really your talk page anymore, it was the article your talk page redirected to. Trying to guess if something that was moved to article space was a draft of some description or just happened to have been someone's talk page is beyond the capabilities of a bot (and got this human confused for a bit while I tried to figure out what that odd "article" was and where in blazes it came from).  :-) — Coren (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
C'mon Boris. I think you enjoyed your brief appearance in the limelight, away from the plebeian drabness of userspace. Dr.K. �ogos�raxis 04:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
It's too bad it didn't work out as planned. I thought it would be nice if we could give our user pages fun and imaginative names instead of always bland, gray User talk:Random_Wikipedian type names. So, this implies that the only way the software knows which space a page belongs to is its name? I had guessed that the names of pages were just aliases to the actual thing (sort of like symbolic links in Linux) and that there was some sort of underlying structure that the software used to identify types of pages and their relationships. But apparently not. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
No need to explain Boris, but just in case, full disclosure: I was just joking. And I agree with your comment about the drabness of userspace. It would be nice if from time to time we got a vacation from all this "user:this" and "user:the other" to something simpler and less forced. I actually enjoyed the title of your brief userpage. Alas it was not to last. Now if we only petitioned the devs... I guess I must be day-dreaming. Take care. Dr.K. �ogos�raxis 05:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

clarification request

I'm not following you here [[42]] -- I don't know if you're suggesting I'm intentionally misrepresenting Hans? Gerardw (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it was intentional. What often happens is that people are so wrapped up in their own view that they jump to a conclusion without actually reading and understanding what the other person is saying. If you re-read what Hans actually said (the words themselves) it's not what you imputed him to say. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to impute he was saying that, more that the brevity of his statement seemed to imply that...however, as my comment was obviously ambiguous, I've restated it. Gerardw (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
"the brevity of his statement seemed to imply that..." yes, that's precisely where we get into trouble. My experience on Wikipedia has taught me that it's usually best to interpret people's words as literally as possible without reading anything into them. (The exception is arbcom, who give us no choice but to try and read the tea leaves.) I don't always follow my own advice, so if I screw up please call me out. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

alienated from political participation

Usual English usage indeed! User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Not great but the best I can do on the fly. I don't know much about the topic and am just trying to smooth out the language a little. The article often reads like -- well, like Russians trying to write in English. If you want to help out that would be great. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Alienation is a word seldom used in English and nearly universally misunderstood, both in its Marxist theoretical sense and in its popular use. "Frozen out of the political process" which I had used, of course has its own problems. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Just try "excluded from the political process". No Marxist overtones or invocation of anomie. :] MastCell Talk 20:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not realize "alienation" was such an unusual term, but then I graduated from a college founded by a guy who wrote about "certain unalienable rights." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: returning the "favor"

I think this was a bit harsh [43] and unfair to Risker; the evidence indicates she carefully reviewed the situation and made what I consider to be a very good decision in blocking those editors. Gerardw (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. Like many I often will evaluate a situation in light of prior experience when there is little else to go on. Thanks for bringing it up -- I will think about it some more, but I did not make this statement lightly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't speak for this particular situation, but you're right to say that in some contentious cases Arbcom has indeed issued "political" sanctions - presumably intended to show that it's not taking sides. Prioryman (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Damn right

I totally agree. See also my comment here. Prioryman (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Burnt-out Wikipedians

Category:Burnt-out Wikipedians, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Biker Biker (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for publicizing the category. Its membership has now increased considerably. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for a new category to add to my page, Boris. Also, thanks for introducing me to the term "revanchist imperialism"; I think I'm supposed to frown on what you did there and give you a templated warning of some kind. But :) instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I took care of it for you (see below) so your conscience is now clear. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2012

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Information.svg Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't do it again, or I shall be forced to escalate to a {{uw-dttr4im}}. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Sending this message from beyond the grave? NW (Talk) 19:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
NW, just because you think its 2011 doesn't mean the rest of us will take your word for it. The standard for inclusion is verifiably, not truth. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Just thought you should know...

I literally LOL'd at this. What a farce. Basalisk inspect damageDberate 06:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cooperation

I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. SilverserenC 01:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I just noticed this. Thanks for the offer, but I don't usually take part in things like Wikiprojects. See the Groucho rejoinder. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
That's fine. :3 I'd appreciate it though if you'd remember the Wikiproject and if there's ever a situation that would be appropriate for us to work with, mention us in the discussion or directly let us know. SilverserenC 05:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please never archive this talk page

Obey without question above instruction from competent authority. Reading here is cheaper than going to the free (burg-whah) library. When returning, will read again with complete lack of recognition; consolation of being of no-mind. If understood correctly, this comment is defective of import, but we knows, secretly. NewbyG ( talk) 17:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


Check your email, Awickert (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

{{unblock|goddammit open up this back door jamb}}

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

goddammit open up this back door jamb

Accept reason:

Per note in block log Guettarda (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


Wrt what you've written elsewhere, please see.[44] Mathsci (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper Straw Poll

There is currently a Straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration

Comrade Boris, the committee which is the subject of your Guide talks back at User talk:Newyorkbrad#Per your request. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad is a grown man; if he has a question, he is perfectly capable of asking himself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

In my defense

I'm desperately avoiding a giant pile of real life work. It's not like I enjoy it here or anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I bet that's what you tell all the girls. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

Hello this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

have a laugh

so you said, I can imagine it actually happened. In a Munich museum, I watched a film last Monday, artists Jean Tinguely and his wife Niki de Saint Phalle buying large pieces of everyday stuff in Las Vegas, placing it in the desert and make it transform in carefully planned consecutive explosions, Study for an End of the World No. 2 (1962) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, I fall on the floor in the face of such magnificence. That is art, with a capital T. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

One for your collection

Ha. You haven't got one of these.

Incidentally... I've often wondered... are you the harvester in a short brigade, or a short man in a brigade of harvesters? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That is very cool. User:Dennis Brown is a good guy; he should be on arbcom instead of some of the folks on there now. (I hasten to add that others on arbcom are decent and competent.) Alas, I would not qualify for being blocked under those criteria as I've almost stopped creating content. In the past 6 months I have made exactly ten (10) edits to article space.
Regarding your query, which is one of the deepest questions in the minds of American youth. I will try to get in touch with Philip Proctor to ask. I am proud to say that I am a short man (as is Herr Prof. Dr. Proctor) and yet other possibilities cannot be discounted. Who are we to say? I mean who are we?
Finally, I shall turn the tables and put a question to you: Which of the Molesworth books must one read first? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it would have to be Down with skool, for me, though I'm not an expert William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Ha, WmC is a wet and a wede, tho prolly rite Agane, sa souza, talk 09:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Korrekted, chiz chiz, . dave souza, talk 10:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hav found my copy, and this may pose translation difficulties unless annotated copies are available. First published 1958, and it shows. Thus, p. 10 "this is st custard's our skool taken with my brownie", technology which may predate your experience; p. 26, "Peason sa he once found 2/6 in the lining", not 2/6 as you colonials might expect, but 2/6d meaning a half crown, an obsolete coin referred to in slang as a half dollar from a mythical time when a USD was worth five bob. And so on. These just came up at a quick glance, don't know if there are more. You may be well up in this sort of ancient history, in which case my over-pedantic apologies. . . dave souza, talk 23:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


Actually has been previously blocked and warned - and blanked his talk page to remove the warnings <g>. I am a strong believer in WP:BITE but this case does not fit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for looking at "details, nuance, or context" of issues, for your pocket guide, for appreciating the magnificence of ART, 'tis the season - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (21 August 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

message now in br'erly thanksgiving (or should I say Halloween?) style ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you know that you, #290 of my Pumpkin Sky prize, were the first of many in that style? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Mini pumpkins.jpg

Two years ago, you were the 290th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Pamje nga Desivojca.jpg

An image for your handwritten note --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I happened to read again your guide to arbitration, had forgotten too much, filed amendment yesterday ;) - I wonder how teh case had developed if I had read it before? DYK ... peace? - I was pleased to find my first entry on this talk still in place. Did you see an image by the user on top of my talk? I joined another project, after Freedom of speech ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 290 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Five years ago now. Music written with your name, DYK? 500 years Reformation, 5 years reformation. - I commented in a request for arbitration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Comrade Gerda. You are truly a jewel of this community. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


Wondering what you mean by certain tactical considerations to voting.? NE Ent 11:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In any election, plebiscite or similar procedure, there typically exist a range of possible outcomes amongst those from which the elector may make his or her specification, some of which may be considered relatively more desirable and others of which may be considered relatively more undesirable from the perspective of a given individual who is contemplating how his vote shall be cast. In such instances, after due reflection, various tactics, methods, and stratagems may be taken into consideration so as to maximize the likelihood that one's vote may contribute to effecting the optimal outcome that one seeks to eventuate from amongst the aforementioned possible outcomes. Hope that clears things up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
One such tactic undoubtedly is conveying to one's comrades optimal technique for maximizing the desired outcome; as all voting systems are imperfect [45], it may not be obvious to bourgeois what strategies are best -- after all free education is part of the policy Comrade Boris professes, is it not? NE Ent 02:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I am no longer infected. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Comrade, you should not worry due to this notice since it is clear you edit Wikipedia at least once every three years. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed such counterrevolutionary incitements deserve no attention. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Request comment

Your input would be appreciated here. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Tim Ball". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator�/�talk 01:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

He Lives!

Back from the dead? It's great to see you :) Guettarda (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC) [Burnt offerings duly laid]

+1 William M. Connolley (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Be sure to kneel as you type. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, what the hell happened with images? The only reason I came here was to fix incorrect copyright info on some images from our website. But when I click an image it just makes an enlarged view of the image instead of taking me to the page that lists permissions and so forth. It took forever to figure out how to find the permissions statement so I could fix it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Dunno. Its crap, isn't it? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Just in time! There's an arbcomm case about it, just waiting for your input. :) Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Delightful. One-stop shopping for two of my favorite parts of Wikipedia -- Arbcom and WMF. I'll dive right in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk " contribs " logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Belatedly welcome back

Hi, Boris. I see you returned in August, sorry I was so slow to notice it (just now on Eric Corbett's page). It's delightful to see you! Bishonen | talk 23:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC).

Indeed. Good to see you (read you?) back! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I second (or third) that, belatedly. You're one of the good ones; we're glad to have you back. bobrayner (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standard of reliable fact, "more likely than not"?

You recently closed discussion on the topic "Unexpectedly low degree of certainty in medical examiner findings" at the reliable sources page.

I have been accused there of forum shopping despite me pointing out that it was Dyrnych that changed forum the first two times, not me. I only followed. But then I did change forum once because I wanted to make a proposal to change the reliable sources guidelines, so I changed the forum to the one I thought was appropriate for that discussion.

There is an important issue at steak. The editors appear to think that facts found by an expert to a probability of "more likely than not", or at least to an unknown probability, are sufficiently reliable to establish a fact in Wikipedia's voice. "More likely than not" is an absurdly low standard for establishing a fact, and if that opinion of Wikipedia editors stands, it will seriously harm the reputation of Wikipedia. There is also a BLP issue involved. The current Eric Garner page states flatly as fact that Pantaleo used a chokehold prohibited by his employer on Garner. Pantaleo is at risk of losing his job if it is decided that he did in fact use a chokehold. I actually think he probably did at least a bit of choking, but nobody really knows, except possibly the medical examiner, who's evidence and reasoning is secret, and whose degree of certainty is unknown. There are many cites of secondary sources reporting the ME's finding that a chokehold was partly the cause of death, but I think there are few if any secondary sources cited that state flatly as a fact that a chokehold was used, rather than just reporting the ME's findings without comment on the correctness of them. Reliable secondary sources report many opinions without any implication that the opinions are reliable.

I suspect that most of the opinions against mine on this topic are from editors from the Eric Garner debate, with the agenda of preventing anything from getting into the article that might cast doubt on their chosen interpretation of the Eric Garner events. These editors strongly avoid answering reasonable questions, like: Is "more likely than not" sufficient to establish a reliable fact in the voice of Wikipedia? I on the other hand, answer their questions freely, and defend both sides on the issue. Although admittedly the article was already much more in inclined toward the guilt of the officer, consequently few edits in that direction were required to bring balance.

So I would like to ask if you would at least open the discussion for another response I'd already taken the time to write, to many of the latest questions and accusations of forum shopping. Or if not re-open the topic, at least pre-approve me just adding one more response. It kind of seems like it might be fair to let the loser get in the last word. It's not that I particularly care to get in the last word, I just wanted to address those particular arguments, especially the literally bold accusation of forum shopping, the supposed unworkability of my proposal, and the apparent fact that none of the Wikpedia guidelines give guidance about what level of probability is needed to establish the reliability of a fact.

I was going to issue a request for comment this evening to draw in a wider range of disinterested editors. I am still going to if it is not prohibited.

There seems to be a problem with the quality of discussion on the reliable sources talk page when none of the editors will even state clearly whether they agree or disagree with important propositions. It is very hard to come to a meeting of the minds when people wont tell you what they're thinking on the critical issues, apparently because they think that might lose them the argument. I'd like to understand the errors of my thinking if I can. Since I never got a clear answer from any of them about the key issues, I'd like to ask you:

Do you think "more likely than not" is an acceptable degree of probability to establish a fact in Wikipedia's voice? Do you think that medical examiners MAY be using the "more likely than not" standard to establish their findings? Do you think we should assume they're using a higher standard absent proof that they're using a lower standard? Or do you think medical examiner's findings of fact are reliable even if they are using the "more likely than not" standard?

Here is the response I was about to post:

I wasn't aware that we were supposed to notify all the other editors of a discussion on an issue elsewhere. This is the first time I've been involved in a discussion on multiple Wikpedia forums. Furthermore, I thought that you not only knew but had contributed to this discussion on this page. Checking, I see I was mistaken about that.
Again, in regards to forum shopping, I only changed the forum once, to what I understand to be the proper forum for discussing my proposed change to the RS policy. The two forum changes before that were by Dyrnych, for reasons I'm not questioning the justification for. I don't believe I need any defense for changing the forum once to the proper forum for my proposal.
The recommendations of the medical examiners guide might not be a "standard", but that is irrelevant. They show that a very significant number of medical examiners, including the leadership of a national organization, MAY make their findings to a "more likely than not" personal standard, especially in non homicide cases. Any particular ME may be using these recommendations or some other standard of their own (or rule of thumb of their own, if you have a problem with the word standard). We don't know. These recommendations are a little old, but they don't appear to have been superseded, and we have no reason to think that they have been. It's not like 2002 was back in the dark ages before forensic science was well developed or something. The NYC ME might be using a more rigorous standard. But it would be absurd to suggest that we should just assume that the NYC medical examiner is reliable because he MIGHT be using standards more rigorous than the National Association of Medical Examiners recommends.
Although I quoted from a Guide for Manner of Death Classification, The quote states in part:

"In general, the certifier of death completes the cause-of-death section and attests that, to the best of the certifier�s knowledge, the person stated died of the cause(s) and circumstances reported on the death certificate. It is important to remember that these �facts� only represent the certifier�s opinion and are not written in stone or legally binding." [Bold emphasis added, quotes around "facts" in original]

And further, the paragraph heading the list of degrees of certainty starts out:

"Because the cause and manner of death are opinions..."[emphasis added]

It's true that the next sentence before the list of degrees of certainty turns to talking of manner of death, but I think similar levels of certainty are being used for cause of death as well. It hadn't occurred to me before, but I think examiners use the "more likely than not" standard because it is useful in civil cases. If they can make the determination at least to that level then they probably do, rather than making no determination, because many parties involved may need that determination to that low level, and find it very useful in civil cases, even if it is not highly certain. Another reason I think they find cause of death to "more likely than not" is that perhaps the main purpose of cause of death findings is for statistical purposes. The keepers of the statistics probably want a finding to whatever certainty they can get. I could be wrong. Maybe they make determinations of cause of death to a much higher standard. You can waste your time trying to hunt that down if you like. But until we know or have good reason to believe or assume that a source is using a reliable standard, it would not be reasonable to assume that their facts are reliable. And furthermore, we're not only talking about the factuality of the cause of death finding, we're also talking about the factuality of the manner of death finding. And the cited probabilities bear directly on that issue. If nothing else, we need a warning in the RS policy to prevent editors from citing the manner of death finding as reliable, absent confirmation of degree of certainty. Although in the one particular case of Eric Garner, I think the degree of certainty for the homicide finding is likely beyond a reasonable doubt, or at least very close.
TMCk wrote at Talk:Death of Eric Garner:

"If we'd applied Mindbuilder's standards he/she is arguing here and at RSN, we'd have to rewrite almost every article of the deceased unless their cause of death is verified by several or maybe even thousands of professionals, considering their climate change comparison at RSN. To question the ME (medical examiner) b/c some pundits and other non experts do is blog/forum material and below WP standards (no matter how low I personally perceive those).TMCk (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)"

And Dyrnych wrote at Talk:Death of Eric Garner:

"And that's an excellent point: it's a completely unworkable standard. In Mindbuilder-world, Wikipedia can virtually never state the cause of death of any decedent, which seriously undermines Wikipedia's utility as an encyclopedia. Dyrnych (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)"

There is no difficulty in my proposal. I'm only proposing a minor change. I still recommend reporting the opinions of medical examiners regarding the cause and manner of death, but as a credible opinion with a warning about the unknown probability, rather than a reliable fact.
And I'm not just questioning the ME's findings because the police unions and some pundits do, I'm questioning them because of the recommendations regarding degree of certainty from the National Association of Medical Examiners.
Dyrnych wrote at Talk:Death of Eric Garner:

"I would like you to show me the Wikipedia policy that establishes the degree of confidence necessary in a particular source's methodology for us to report its conclusions as fact."

Incredible! Dyrnych appears to be right! I think I skimmed all the relevant guidelines, and I'm unable to find any Wikipedia policy that establishes the degree of confidence necessary in a particular source's methodology for us to report its conclusions as fact. I guess this is probably a result of our reliance on reliable sources and our expectation that they will follow a good standard of their own. And it may not have occurred to anyone that it needed to be made clear that "more likely than not" is a grossly inadequate standard. The closest I have found is from the WP:NPOVFAQ (which is an essay, not an official policy or even guideline). It states there that a "fact" is "e.g. information ... about which there is no serious dispute" I think a 49% possibility that a fact is wrong leaves ample room for serious dispute. But again, that's just an essay. It is now clear that we need new policy, not just about medical examiners but about sources and the reliability of facts in general. Mindbuilder (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Lord. Boris, what have you done? MastCell Talk 17:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I have done bad things, terrible things, things that someone such as you cannot imagine. The final stage of my punishment will be to regain my admin bit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying you're not an admin now? That doesn't matter. Since you made the judgment to close the discussion, your opinion alone, admin or not, is enough for me to reopen it, unless it is locked somehow. Also, if you have looked at the argument, I'm still curious how you would answer these questions. Few seem to want to answer them directly. If MastCell or others are reading this, I'd be interested in their answers to these questions as well.
Do you think "more likely than not" is an acceptable degree of probability to establish a fact in Wikipedia's voice?
Do you think that medical examiners MAY be using the "more likely than not" standard to establish their findings?
Do you think we should assume they're using a higher standard absent proof that they're using a lower standard?
Or do you think medical examiner's findings of fact are reliable even if they are using the "more likely than not" standard?
I'm planning a request for comment or something this evening. I can't drop it. Then again I was planning it the last couple evenings also, and didn't get to it. What would you recommend I do next, other than drop it? Is a request for comment still allowed after the discussion at reliable sources talk has been closed? Mindbuilder (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
First ask yourself under what conditions you would be willing to drop it. If the answer is "none" or "when I get my way," then things could end very badly for you. (Please note that's not a threat but an observation of what I've seen happen all too often here.) I know from experience how frustrating it can be when things don't go your way on an issue where you feel strongly. But sometimes you have to let it go and move on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A Brigade of Harvesters for you

Pieter Bruegel the Elder- The Harvesters
Charles Angrand - The Harvesters -

Hafspajen (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks more like a platoon, but it's the thought that counts. MastCell Talk 17:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, all these art critics. This one, then?Hafspajen (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The Bruegel one, with its option of cutting a maze in the wheat, reminds me that I forgot to put a Borges story on the syllabus I just finished. Thanks for the reminder. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Hafspajen. The imagery is inspiring, though of course better expressed in socialist realism. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
"Are you sure this is the way to K-Mart?"
SBHB, I thank you for your peacekeeping efforts. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record

I prefer Tina Fey. She is quite attractive, and that mixture of Greek, German, Scottish, and English is spectacular, although it's probably the Greek component that does it for me. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't sell Putin short, though. You can look into his eyes and see his soul, and know that he's famously straightforward and trustworthy. MastCell Talk 18:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Me too!

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Aren't you a bit young to be turning into a cranky old fart? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I resent this agism! I can be a cranky old fart at any age. Also, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:REALLYANAL! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA says:

" Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Any cups of tea around?

I fear I am losing patience. [46]

To answer your question from UT:Jimbo - the main PNAC article was topsy-like by 2005 -- where it showed a lot of "9/11 conspiracy" influence.[47]

Over 41K by May 2007. Including " Signatories or contributors to other significant letters or reports" including folks who appear to have had damn little to do with PNAC at all. COATRACK incarnate. And a cup or two full of 9/11 conspiracy - including giving credence that PNAC orchestrated attacks on the US. "Theologian David Ray Griffin has used this quote to support the conspiracy theory that PNAC members within the Bush Administration were complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

64K by June 2009 [48]. 9/11 rampant. 60 "see also" links.

The new "list" - which is now stated to rightfully include anyone who was even osculant to anything with PNAC as a "member" seems in accord with what the earlier editors appeared to intend - 50% "9/11 conspiracy" and 50% "neocon right-wing conspiracy" <g>.

Cheers. Either some of those folks do not understand why WP:BLP etc. exist, or I am involuntarily channeling Cicero. At least you mat be sure I am consistent on this stuff no matter who is involved. What really worries me is that some editors think that Santayana's advice is non-utile :(. At least theJohann Hari BLP seems finally in some order. Collect (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

new essay

The case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It reminds me of a favorite essay by the great American philosopher Sylvester Stewart. Perhaps you are familiar with it; the first line is especially compelling. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I suspect it is congruent with the Franklin quote that we should not assume our own infallibility <g>. Collect (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

Please note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others has been opened. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A splendid time is guaranteed for all. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Short Brigade Harvester Boris, you have been removed as a party from the American politics 2 arbitration case by an arbitrator. Accordingly, your evidence size limit is now 500 words and 50 diffs. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


Any advice you can offer about [] would be appreciated.—Kww(talk) 00:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think User:John actively supports the alt-med folk. Rather, my perception is that he likes the fact that they are deferential toward him. For my part I have decided to have no interaction with him. The exception is that I will offer evidence if someone files a request that his administrative privileges be revoked. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Please feel free to raise any questionable actions with me at my talk page, Short. --John (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Apologies but I think it best to decline your generous offer. No offense, of course. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Would that evidence be related to the pile I'm gathering about pseudoscience, or is it on unrelated issues?—Kww(talk) 00:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The nature of any evidence I might bring will depend on the nature of the complaint that is brought. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. I'll leave you to get on with your evidence gathering then. Don't forget that the offer is always open. --John (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain, but I think that SBHB began using that picture about the same time that I used it as a thank you card to supporters after my failed third RFA.—Kww(talk) 17:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Workshop post

Hi. Replied here but forgot to ping. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've set up my account not to show pings so no matter. The Traveling Boris (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


But water above 3.98 �C expands as it warms is entirely *true* :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You public-school types are such smartasses. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Phantom time

Actually the theory is not completely insane. There is more coverage in German scholarship than in English, and it touches in a weak point in historiography: we have few manuscript sources from that period. It is not politically correct to call it 'the Dark Ages', but it does not reflect much light. Most manuscript sources date to much later, i.e. they are copies of earlier texts that did not survive (and which never existed, per the theory). A lot of dating involves more estimation than you would like. For example, if x mentions y, then we infer that x is later than y, and if z mentions x, we infer that x is earlier than z, and so you get an ordering with anchor points from which a whole chronology can be reconstructed. The anchor points are often coronations or papal appointments or something like that. An infuriating aspect of medieval scholarship is that unlike Wikipedia, writers rarely mention sources. They say things like "some people say that ... other people say that ...", so you have to guess who 'some people', 'other people' actually were. Perhaps they thought it was impolite to mention people by name, but it makes the history of ideas a minefield. Peter Damian (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


Got it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg I'm actually just spreading a little WikiLove today and made a big blunder when I arrived at your TP. I apologize for that accidental archive. The graphic card in my laptop crashed a few days ago and all I have with me is an antiquated iPad. While scrolling down your TP, I accidentally hit the "archive" link in the right margin (it won't disengage on Safari). Hope it doesn't dilute my original intent for coming here. Atsme��📧 20:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what this is all about but I'll eat the cupcake anyway. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Not a biggy. One Click Archiver issue. Enjoy the cupcake. 0:) --Atsme��📧 13:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Boris, I am happy that you will be monitoring WP:Advocacy ducks. It's on my Watchlist, too. I have no qualms admitting that my first attempt at writing an essay was extremely raw and lacked insight. The criticisms in the first MfD taught me a lot and you can rest assured, the lessons did not go to waste. => --Atsme📞📧 13:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought about leaving this in but...

[Moved to article talk page where others can chime in.]

Thank you for the correction

I wasn't sure which of the templates to use. Thank you for adding the correct one. I also removed the duck template which seemed to have gotten some underwear in a wad. Maybe they'll be more comfortable now. --Atsme📞📧 13:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Per Sting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions on climate change

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions on alternative medicine

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Not at all

I have NO affiliation with LRX in anyways whatsoever. I was the one who added critical material to the program [49] that is the version of the article I left it in before it got blanked out.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a massive fan of yours....

All things considered I AM NOT A MASSIVE FAN (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I wish to retract the above statement

I am much more of a fan now due to your cooperation. Please consider joining my army of 748 dedicated vandals to improve the talk pages of wikipedia. (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

RPP & posting at the bottom

The main reason things like that happen is because WP:Twinkle automatically adds the reports to the top of the page. Face-wink.svg So it's not so much a case of people not reading as of people not noticing. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Twinkle. The festering boil on the bottom of so many errors and misunderstandings... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Twinkle certainly has its downsides, yes. Still useful as a tool, though, provided one either knows how to avoid the pitfalls or keeps a proper eye on what they're doing and is fast in undoing whatever stupidity came from the use of Twinkle this time. (Then again, keeping a proper eye on one's edits is always good advice, manual or assisted edit/action...) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC closure challenge

The closing of an RFC in which you participated, is being challenged at WP:AN#RFC closure challenge - Cwobeel (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

CC Denial stuff

I suppose I earned your rebuke, but let me unpack my comment a bit.

I'm old enough, that, when I was a kid in Stillwater, Oklahoma, we still had "white" and "colored" bathrooms at the train station. (And several passenger trains a day.) Plus a segregated neighborhood for poor blacks, known to all kids as "niggertown". "Colored town" to more polite adults. Compare "Denier" to "Denialist".

Why you would care about this, I don't know, except that I recall you also expressing distaste for the Denial propaganda-page AWB. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC) [Deleted by author, restored by page owner 06/30/15]

This is hands-down the most disgusting thing that has ever appeared on my talk page. Pete, you're smarter than this, so why are you doing it? Are you deliberately trying to provoke? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Boris, I'm sorry you didn't care for my little story of how things were, not so many years ago. But it's an accurate memory, and a cautionary tale. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And I'm mystified as to why you find this little bit of history "hands-down the most disgusting thing that has ever appeared on my talk page." So, if you care to unpack your comment, fine. Otherwise please just leave it deleted, as I already did. I wasn't trying to be offensive. If you can't see that the Skeptic = Denier campaign is a political campaign intended to marginalize/stigmatize opponents, well.... maybe you need to read some history and/or social psychology. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wise counsel?

So, do you have any to offer, re the situation outlined at Talk:Climate change denial? Other than, "stay the hell away?" I am thinking pretty seriously about following your advice. And also thinking about staying the hell away, and let the fucking thing lie in its own stinking sty. Which should it be? Your pal, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

With pals, who needs anemones? Your input at that talk page section will be greatly appreciated. Or as comrade Trotsky may have said, take your pick. . . dave souza, talk 21:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the word that the young people use is "meh." I've chosen to (mostly) stay away from that topic for various reasons -- partly because I'm more interested in the scientific aspects of the topic, partly because those on both sides are getting overwrought about things that (IMNSHO) aren't hugely important, partly for still other reasons. Dave, you should be punished. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Anemonies... OK, now I get it. I was picturing.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't the wurst of it -- check his last sentence. (Google "Trotsky pick" if you're not up on Soviet history.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, the ice pick. The Soviets. The Russians.... lovely people--Pete Tillman (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Arb CC notifications

Hi Boris,

Re this.... FYI, in case you don't know, the DS system for enforcing arb rulings was overhauled. In case you notify anyone besides yourself, under the new system we're explicitly told to use only the DS template. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That's what I did -- I think? The diffs include the string "Derived from Template:Ds/alert" so it looks like the text shown was auto-expanded from the DS template. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
We're not using the "notifications" section of the rulings anymore. All notices posted in ARB cases have expired (I think). Instead, we're supposed to notify someone by creating a new section and providing the new DS alert template, and nothing else. I do that by typing
{{subst:alert|cc}} ~~~~
maybe there are other ways. I also self alerted and tested how it works, there's ramblings about the testing here. We're supposed to look for prior alerts for that topic area within past 12 months before doing it again, too. Afterwards, any further comments can be added to follow up posts. Meanwhile, I look forward to whatever supplemental statement you make at AE, whether it reflects poorly on me or not. There has indeed been too much table pounding and not enough vigorous policy and RS-based debate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
More information can be found here: Template:Ds/alert. Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone

You might like to check your recent edit at Tropical cyclone. I looked because the article is now in an error tracking category and the diff includes changing "order=flip" (good) in a {{convert}} to "disp=flip" (deprecated) and lots of other changes which made me wonder whether it was intentional. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, very weird stuff is been happening with my edits tonight. See here for another example, and here for another. I don't have the slightest idea what's causing this so I'm going to shut down for the night. Thanks for the heads-up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Urban heat island

Feel like improving the "causes" stuff at urban heat island? I'm not convinced the article currently does very well (esp. lede) and this is close to your stuff. IPCC is a touch vague - because they're not terribly interested in the causes, only in the effect on the record (e.g. []) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I might work on it now and then but can't put in a concentrated effort -- lots going on now. While abusively stalking your contributions I noticed HadCM3 and made some minor changes which you may want to double check. Do you remember where the top level is? My recollection is that it's in the single digits of mb (3 mb? 5 mb?) but have forgotten the exact value and would like to say something more specific than "way up high." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

only one MATLAB script?

Most of Woodcock's work has been in computer modeling - so I find that claim unconvincing. The Monte Carlo simulation based on Woodcock's original Fortran program is, in fact, a major part of MATLAB AFAICT, not a mere "single script". [50]. Collect (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The way you wrote the text made it look like Woodcock's program was the source of all of MATLAB: "MATLAB was based on his Fortran program." The source only acknowledges his Fortran program as the source of the MD_LJ script. And it's a script the textbook authors developed themselves -- not a part of the MATLAB distribution, much less a "major part." Suggest more careful reading in future. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I possibly misread the footnote as implying that MATLAB uses Woodcock's Fortran Monte Carlo simulation itself. Mathworks definitely uses and promotes Sandler's works. Collect (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The "Nature News" stuff looks like amateur content aggregation (and adds very little - we establish the person is notable, and that there is the single "interview" (which no one seems to have ever proofread at the newspaper) and that this is discordant with consensus). I think the "Noah's Ark" aside should be given in the full context where he also mentions ancient desert floods - else it makes him sound like a loon while it is reasonably likely he was making a general reference to traditional stories about floods, and the actual accepted belief than some deserts were, indeed, flooded in the past. Collect (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

All the sourcing in that article is lousy. Even the best of the sources, the esteemed Yorkshire Evening Post (mostly a sports paper, from what I can tell), makes a howler: quoting Woodcock, “We can go back to great floods and Noah’s Ark in the Middle East regions which are now desserts." I seriously doubt Woodcock meant that entire regions were creme brulee or German chocolate cake. And that's my main point: we just don't have enough sourcing for a decent bio on the guy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
"YEP" is a splendid example of horrid journalistic standards. Though I do like great desserts. Woodcock does appear to be widely known for his computer modeling in the sphere of thermodynamics - I would not trust YEP for accuracy regarding Woodcock's words in context <g>, but that does not mean he is not reasonably well-known within his field, and we can afford having him with a short article without the added (and likely quite irrelevant) "climate change" stuff in it. Collect (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

New name

I like the new name. I trust it symbolises an change of attitude - no more of this namby-pmaby pandering to denialists William M. Connolley (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Great new name! Bishonen | talk 09:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC).
Change came as a shock but accepted. I recommended reading your essay about arbitration ("Disregard the commandments herein at your peril.") a lot recently, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It's bothered me for a while. I've listened over and over again and still think Phil Proctor is saying "short" instead of "shock." But "shock" is correct. And as the young people say it's "edgier".
Here is the closest I've been able to find to the source for the Firesign skit (headline "To each according...") though instead of Boris they call the protagonist Ivan Rostov. Doesn't have nearly as nice a ring to it.
As William implies there will be severe consequences for shirkers and the politically unreliable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Serves them right! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

  1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
  2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case


Just wanted to let you know that your warning notice on the top of your talk page is perhaps the funniest thing I've seen on this entire site. Cheers, GABHello! 23:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a drunken drummer. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))


My sole comment on such a person (hypothetically) is that their sole ideology is based on votes, and not on anything else, and that the key issue is likely to be one of their long-term health, which no one dares raise <g>. And that this comment applies to a large number of people. Cryptic enough for any IP lurker <g>. Collect (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Thanks for the peacekeeping operations at Cleveland Clinic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

2016 year of the reader and peace

peace bell

Thank you for good comments last year. I recommend your arbcom essay a lot! 2016 had a good start, with a Bach cantata (a day late) and an opera reflecting that we should take nothing to seriuz, - Verdi's wisdom, shown on New Year's Day, also as a tribute to Viva-Verdi. (Click on "bell" for more.) Miss Yunshui (among others) and his harmonious editing. We can only try to follow the models of those who left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

AE notification logging

Hi Boris,

I noted your addition of Hugh to the log of ARBCC notices and just FYI that log is now for historical purposes only. Instead, logging takes now takes place with a tag on the server, and the tag is set by issuing someone {{subst:alert|cc}} ~~~~. All of the notices that were posted in the old log ceased to be effective on 5-3-15. Thereafter, an AE complaint has to show someone "had notice" once every 12 months. The new system is more nuanced, but that's the gist. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


Hi there. Can you provide a page number for your recent addition to Himmler? Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I tried, but looks like I messed it up. Apologies -- I've never been any good at those reference templates. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Fixed, no huhu. Thanks — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I rather doubt he's a climate scientist as claimed

Indeed, more of a wannabee William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably so. I think he means well. But one of the hardest things I have to do is un-teach the "blanket" analogy he promotes along with other incorrect explanations that students have absorbed. In comparison students pick up supposedly more complex ideas like equatorially trapped Kelvin waves fairly easily, because the topic is completely new and they have no pre-existing incorrect mental model to unlearn. More at the excellent "Bad Greenhouse" Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment at AE

I'll respond here instead of AE to this. One of the reasons why we wanted discretionary sanctions on the topic was to avoid the circus at ANI with never-ending threads as opposed to word limits at AE. I know AE isn't the greatest either, but it would seem less likely to get derailed than ANI as admins are theoretically supposed to be able to cut through the cruft a little easier there. Not to mention that a cut and dry case like this should be easily handled by a single admin. I could be wrong too, but being a sanctioned topic usually means these cases should go to AE, so that's all why I've stuck with AE. I definitely hear you though that AE hasn't been perfect either though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of User:Jonas Vinther

I saw that you would like to have a friendly word with me about the subject of this section. -- GB fan 19:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in. I assume you're aware of the backstory on Jonas. Anyway I've looked into this a little more and found you were completely in the right on policy grounds -- it was a page in user space to which (I assume) no other editors had contributed. Jonas has left enough of a trail at WP:ANI and elsewhere that while burning the user page hides the worst, there's enough left to piece things together.
Also, on re-reading my comment I see that it could have come across more snarky than I meant -- sometimes my attempts at humor work out that way. Please accept my apologies for that. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I was not aware of the backstory when I deleted the page, I really don't pay attention to who the person is when I evaluate U1s. I saw the stuff happening at the RFA but I did not put two and two together until I found your note. Whenever some questions a deletion I go back and look again to make sure I didn't miss anything. I deleted over 1500 revisions. Not all were made by Jonas, (didn't count how many exactly) but it looks like less than were made by other editors. None of them were substantial edits, some vandalism and reverts and the rest were editors removing non-free images.
The comment could come off as a little snarky, but I always try to remember that the written language is hard to assign emotions to and try to take things at face value. Thank you for the apology, it is definitely accepted. -- GB fan 03:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • By the way, guys, Ideology of the SS, to which I was alerted by that RfA, can use some editing help, as can the main article. The problem is the tendency of that article to lapse into SS jargon. Just in case you're interested. Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh and I wanted to add that Schutzstaffel itself can use more eyes, for those so inclined. Frankly I don't quite understand why it isn't known as simply "SS" but I guess they have their reasons. Coretheapple (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Peter Langdon Ward?

You might be interested: Peter Langdon Ward William M. Connolley (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice little advertisement he's got there. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

MilHist discussion

Hi, just a note that there is a WikiProject Military history discussion on WWII GA/FA articles that you may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't get involved in GA/FA stuff. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please undo your revert

Your reversion was quite inappropriate. Keep in mind that this is the talk page of the Heartland Institute, and a specific section discussing a specific statement in the article. A newish editor, @Poodleboy: who can be forgiven for not yet knowing how things work, started with an on topic response to Heartland issues, but then began a rambling rant on various global warming issues, which are interesting but have no bearing on the Heartland issue. I didn't collapse the discussion as an administrator but as an editor. The other editor is quite welcome to start a new section but links to articles such as the deep ocean explanation for the hiatus, while quite interesting, are unrelated to the Heartland discussion. I respectfully request that you reverse your reversion and help explain to this new editor how to contribute in a positive way.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First, let me acknowledge that you did this action in your capacity as an editor and not as an admin. You promised at your RfA that you would recuse yourself from acting as an administrator on the topic of climate change and you very commendably have stuck with that commitment. My statement that "as an administrator you should know better" was intended to say that administrators should be especially cognizant of editing norms, not that you were acting as an administrator. Please accept my apologies for any misunderstanding.
Which brings us to the second point. You hatted part a discussion in which you had commented extensively, including responses to your comments (such as my response on the point of scientific consensus). That's inappropriate and we'd expect admins in particular to know better even when acting as editors. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion had veered from the subject. Poodleboy is trying to explain why it is on-topic, and not doing very well. As you well know, it is quite common to hat discussions when they veer off-topic, and there is no requirement that I'm aware of, that such hatting is not permitted if one has commented. If you read my comments, you will see my comment was specifically noting that the subject was off-topic, and that wasn't working so I decided to try plan B.
What's done is done - I request that you join in the discussion, and see if you can help get it back on-topic. As you well know, climate issues have a checkered hsitory of getting far off-topic, and I want your help in keeping it on track.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The "deep ocean explanation" for the hiatus was about a mechanism which attributed roughly half the warming phase to a different mode of the same cause. It was on topic because the HI statement about 2 thirds of the 90s being natural was mentioned and misunderstood to be outside the consensus. Poodleboy (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be debating whether HI might be right, which is NOT the topic heading. (Sorry, SBHB, I though it polite to let Poodleboy know I mentioned him, but I didn't intend to transfer the debate here.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi, Boris. I was wondering if you have some background in seismology (no?). If so – but even if not! – I wonder if you might be interested in pursuing the material at Talk:Earthquake_prediction#RfC re neutrality/POV issues and commenting. I would appreciate it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Good lord what a mess. It's not really my field so I'm inclined to give it a pass. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sea Lions. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Idle chatter

Hey, I replied on my talk page. That's not why I'm telling you this. It's because I tried to ping you with a template and I wanted to know if it worked, so I needed to make sure you were at least aware of this enough to answer "no" if it didn't. Go ahead and erase this discount TB because I saw you don't like TBs. Sorry! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback regarding the ways in which I should be editing content. It has helped me navigate the complex web that is Wikipedia. Lawrence Hirst (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


I'm just gonna comment on how ironic it is that the WP:Tl;dr essay needs to be shortened. Gestrid (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. There's a bit of history to that -- see the spate of edits in late 2010 through early 2011. I couldn't tell whether the editors involved were serious in their defense of verbosity, or were just taking the piss. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ref desk deletion

Hey, just curious why you deleted this. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It was totally unintentional. According to my browser I was deleting the question from the ref desk troll (which I had mistakenly interpreted as a question from an uninformed kid). But somehow your edit and mine crossed.
I've had this kind of edit collision (or whatever it's called) happen several times before. No idea whether it's a bug in the MW software, or a browser issue, or something else. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Information icon Before adding a category to an article, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

And that is a final warning! One last chance before you're drawn and quartered. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC).
What can I say? It's not my fault that the name of the template is too good to resist. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Stop icon This is your only warning. Editors on Wikipedia are sometimes required to have fun in order to avoid the potentially serious consequences of Wikipedia related disorders, especially those which become chronic. Please do not attempt to interfere in this process. Further disruption will result in a report being filed at the appropriate noticeboard. TimothyJosephWood 20:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


Hi and thanks for the heads up.

Just to comment in regards to edit summaries and tone down - this userTalk:Vladimir_Putin#Dictator.3F is a banned violator for years, if I sounded less than serious with them, it is because I see no benefit in reporting them, they will only return. that is the meaning of lala lala lol Govindaharihari (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The proper response to a suspicion of sockpuppetry is to file a report at WP:SPA; if the case is complex, a noticeboard report (such as WP:ANI) may be preferable instead. Sure it can be frustrating (several long-term sockpuppets have hundreds of accounts) but that's the only way. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks. The user in question appears to have hundreds of accounts which he uses for a day and moves on so I won't report at this stage. Happy new year to you and thanks for the advice and sanctions notice. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

you, yeah YOU

FYI, I linked a 2011 diff of yours at talk GW. No biggie, I just wanted to beat William to the punch posting something here, though I'm pretty sure he'd be funnier. Bwwww ha ha I win. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

YOU? That probably wasn't funnier but I do like it. Someone needs to do a Trump version William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Did you catch this one at ANI? I'll have to dust off my dictionary. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I especially liked the "sorry for my English", and nice twist on "pardon my French" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. AusLondonder (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:DTTR. Seriously. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That section you restored is still bugging me!

Talk:2017 Women's March#Two "celebrities" sub-sections and POV banner added to one took to TP per your request. Would you care to comment there? Would you object to the well-sourced content being moved to the other celebrity section in the article? TeeVeeed (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


Just curious if you think the general direction of the Satellite article is pos or neg? Don't really want to get into details here though NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Eh. These things happen. I see WMC has effected repairs. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


[51] ...I was already looking forward to learning some interesting new details about electrochemistry. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I need cataract surgery on my other eye. So kill me. It does make for some very entertaining misspellings as well as slightly psychedelic responses to misreading, which I often leave uncorrected even when I notice them. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Oy! Speedy recovery. My personell prefered mispelling is is errors off word and lettter multiplicity. And I start too mix up to many homophones, which may mean I start too sink in acoustic English. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Your email

Unfortunately, I can't suggest anything; I've only been here since October (I moved from 500 miles away) and don't know much of anything about historical sources for this part of the country, aside from National Register documentation. I can give you a link to this place's NR documentation, since it's online, but I won't unless you tell me that it's okay to mention on-wiki the place you asked about. Otherwise, go to that state's section at WP:NRHPHELP and follow the links; the PDF nomination is online. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

the mail

hello - to quote you - some of which you already have participated in - would you please link to those discussions, thanks - or retract your comment, regards. 20:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, reading your post I think you have missed my position completely - my point of discussion is about a new approach to all similar publications in general - to create a new BLP standard for such sources, one that would ultimately not totally reject any single source. It is not a new location for a similar discussion - it is a completely new idea and discussion point. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice old RfC withdrawn and recreated with a clarified question

This is to notify you that the prior RfC at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming was withdrawn as the question confused several people, and instead it was re-opened with a new clarified question. I am notifying all those that responded to the old RfC (except those that have already responded) so that they may comment on the new RfC. The new RfC is here: Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#RfC:_Should_the_phrase_.E2.80.9Cthe_consensus_has_strengthened_over_time.E2.80.9D_be_removed_as_WP:SYNTHESIS_or_WP:UNDUE_WEIGHT.3F Obsidi (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Alkaline diet

Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack

wp:npa - this edit of yours labelling me a troll and a vandal [here] - you linked to wp:deny - This is a personal attack, I request you apologise and retract it. I am not a wp:troll or a wp:vandal by any description. I am a good faith en wikipedia user for two and a half years with almost seven thousand improvement contributions with a clean block log. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

That was not a personal attack, nor did it use the either the word "troll" or the word "vandal". It was an observation; editors are allowed to make observations about other editors and to suggest ways of responding to them. Your continued harping, on the other hand, accorss multiple talk pages and in multiple venues, is disruptive editing, and sooner or later is going to get you blocked -- at this rate I'm predicting sooner. Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
ta for replying as a talkpage stalker but I am seeking a reply from the actual commenter in regards to their linking to Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Just to also note, after the above user Softlavender commented here without links I have requested links on their userpage, here - Govindaharihari (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The sandbox material could not evolve into a mainspace article in anything remotely resembling its current form.

work in progress... Initial efforts may not be to your standards but, with contributions, it could serve to document something not being covered I.E. coup d'état. btw, impeachment is only part of the ongoing coup d'état efforts. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ccprobation

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Ccprobation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
16:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization of job titles

It is covered in WP:JOBTITLES, which makes no exception for "formal" job titles. WP does not capitalize executive director or senior executive director or shipping clerk or senior shipping clerk or assistant shipping clerk, not even pope, which is decidedly an official title. Please help clean up Roy Spencer (scientist).

OK. Wiki has some odd rules sometimes, but I guess we have to follow them. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

You were right

You were totally right, at [52].

I hope things can settle down some.

Let me know if you have any other advice, I'm all ears. Sagecandor (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

As the saying goes, "all's well that ends." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Unless the thing that ends well is ground water depletion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Roswell That Ends Well. Sagecandor (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Brain fart, I just realized I read your prior comment wrong. That version was even better! So, for me, this thread is "all's well" because it now, well..... you know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
QED. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

JUNE 2017

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubertgrove (talkcontribs)

Thanks for letting me know. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


Any chance of an example of an unclear or incomplete sentence? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! VQuakr (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

From a loving fan

2601:401:502:320A:F4EA:1F1D:9586:DF95 (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Climate science opinion graph

Moving off Connolley's talk page. I believe that File:Climate science opinion graph 3 Sans.svg is sanserif. See c:User talk:Jim1138#Graphics village pump for discussion. JoKalliauer fixed up my botched attempt here - File:Climate science opinion graph 3.svg replacing the font with sanserif and doing other useful things as well. InkScape's file was 17k v JoKalliauer's file 7k. I guess I need better software. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for your effort on this. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Organ Cave

I just noticed that you sent me an email in March regarding Organ Cave. I'm really sorry that I never responded! May I post here the general question/comments about the cave? You gave some family history, which of course I won't post on-wiki.

You requested sourcing. I'm not familiar with the site; I'm growing gradually more familiar with Virginia, but I nearly never cross into West Virginia or use its sources. I can work on finding sources if you wish, but I'd really be starting from scratch. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup. Please don't go to any trouble. I was asking in case you happened to know of something off the top of your head. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Climate change discretionary sanctions notice

Hi, I noticed that you placed a notice on my talk page regarding the Climate change discretionary sanctions notice. Now, all I have done on the topic was change some cumbersome wording in the Wikipedia article on John Christy, and propose in the talk page to amend the title of the "climate change denial". You also reverted my changes on the John Christy page. If could you please elaborate on the reason for posting the sanctions notice on my talk page, and tell me why you believe that my changes to John Christy's page were not an improvement, that would be helpful. Actuarialninja (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Actuarialninja: Note the wording at the bottom of the message Boris left you: Please keep in mind that this notice is for informational purposes only and does not imply any accusation of wrongdoing on your part. Guettarda (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
But also note that you have made several reverts to the John Christy page, but have not used an edit summary to describe your changes (which is helpful) or attempted to open a discussion on the article's talk page (which is the appropriate thing to do if you try to make a change and it gets reverted). Hope this helps. Guettarda (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Guettarda - I did use the edit summary for my initial change to John Christy's page and to my latest revert. Unfortunately, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris didn't put any useful info in the edit summary when undoing my change, and did not use the talk page, so I cannot know where I went wrong. I thought my edit was helpful and improved the quality of the article. If Shock Brigade Harvester Boris disagrees and does not think it is an improvement, I would like to know why. Actuarialninja (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

IP vandal

SBHB - I reverted that inappropriate comment because it was from a vandal, and have seen other users do the same thing at his page, (and at Jimbo's page) so why did you choose to revert mine, considering my name was also included and I didn't want it to be associated with such nonsense? I figured Drmies would have known what I did the same way I know what gets posted and removed on my TP.Atsme📞📧 23:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Climate science opinion2.png

@JoKalliauer: has done an excellent job on a replacement for File:Climate science opinion2.png. Ordered per my perceived quality:

JoKalliauer appears to have bypassed the Wikirenderer by converting the text to a path. You can see the files on my commons talk page: c:User talk:Jim1138#Graphics village pump What do you think about replacement of File:Climate science opinion2.png with one of these? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wouldn't it make sense to have the bars in chronological order left to right? FourViolas (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Jim1138, I agree with your ranking. It would be fine to replace the png version with the first listed of the svg graphs. FourViolas, the surveys were done during such a narrow window of time that they can be viewed as contemporaneous. One could argue that the bars should be in some order, but there could be a better choice than chronological Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Bleh. Science. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Through a Marshall Lead, Lemmy? (Ha, I'm old school too--I am playing A Day at the Races, just procured on vinyl.) Drmies (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ha that's funny--John Deacon played one too, apparently, but I can't hear it on this album. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I thought he mostly used a Precision. Anyway, after I win the lottery and buy a house big enough to fit it'll be twin SVT stacks. With the Rick-O-Sound you need one for each pickup. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

- Jim1138 (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Better wording link?

At "Sea surface temperature", is there a better term than thermal conductivity to meet the "evaporative cooling contributes substantially to canvas bucket errors, and may even dominate in some cases" description? X1\ (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi X1\, the problem is that influences on canvas bucket errors are too varied to be reflected in a link to a single concept. For good discussions of the factors that go into SST measurement errors see Kent and Taylor (2006) or Matthews (2013). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


If this Boris won't run for a position of power, by jove I will!

All those in favor of Shock Brigade Harvester Boris running for the next ArbCom, say "aye". Drmies (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I am going to request indefinite full protection. Or full indefinite protection, whichever one it is supposed to be. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It has dawned on me that you folks may actually be serious about this. If that is the case I am truly moved by your (unwarranted) confidence. But there is no way that I could take the time to do a good job. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Aye, but ah dinna ken. Anyone sane enough to do it well is liable to be too sensible to take it on. So, mibbe aye, mibbe naw. . . dave souza, talk 03:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd say definitely nay, simply because my running for Arbcom is my first platform on my stepping stones to the facist dictatorship of Europe. If Boris ran, I'd be less likely to be able to invade Gibraltar this side of 2020, and that's highly inconvenient. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Mister wiki case has been accepted

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


Was there ever a real User:Randy in Boise? I've seen that name on WP from time to time (mostly ANI so I thought he was a disruptive user) but before today, I never bothered to click on the link. doh +rug burns. Atsme📞📧 00:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Studio 71

The Studio 71 article has been altered again to remove promotional tone. I removed your advert tag, but wanted you to visit the page at your earliest convenience so to garner your approval of this change. If you didn't approve, I told the COI editor that you were free to re-add the template as you saw fit. Thank you for your time. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 20:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: thanks for notifying me. If you're OK with the article I won't re-add the COI tag. The article is pretty lousy -- mostly a bulleted list of random facts, many of which are the "who cares?" variety. But I don't mind that the article is lousy, only that it's policy compliant and doesn't deceive our readers. I'm not particularly interested in working for free to polish up an article by a paid editor. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

2018...seems more futuristic than realistic...

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)

Atsme📞📧 12:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Time To Spread A Little
Happy Holiday Cheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree
in the spirit of the season.

What's especially nice about
this digitized version:
*it doesn't need water
*won't catch fire
*and batteries aren't required.
Have a Happy Holiday Season!

and a prosperous New Year!!

🍸🎁 🎉


Have you considered "Category:Wikipedians who cannot be trout-slapped because they are already fish"? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Excellent point. I did write WP:BAIT, after all. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


One is but a flatworm?

I'm glad to find out that you cannot be trouted, either! And on teh Internet, nobody knows that you're a fish! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

As a Plan B, what about flatworming ?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
YES!!! 2601:401:500:5D25:7033:D48C:66AC:2998 (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Flatworms? Nah! Watch out for the ick! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Wait till they start wearing top hats..... dave souza, talk 20:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
One of the many benefits of being a flatworm is that if your head gets cut off you just grow a new one. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Spoken like the original author of WP:BAIT !! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

what you seek

is likely in 3RRArchive362. — xaosflux Talk 13:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Holy moly

I was cleaning out my watchlist today, and came across Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SandyGeorgia. I can't even recall who did such a silly thing! Anyway, it reminded me of you :) Hope you are well, rarely see you around! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Looking back it's hard to tell if I was in a humorous mood or a cynical mood.
Anyway good to hear from you. I'm not all that active here any more, mostly just poking around the edges here and there. Take care. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Anythingyouwant and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)