| Revision as of 09:23, 4 January 2010 view sourceChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs)43,032 edits →Editing without consultation on an article on probation: - please see article talk page← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:55, 30 April 2015 view source Maintenance script (talk | contribs)Bots398 editsm Maintenance script moved page User talk:ChrisO to User talk:ChrisO~enwiki without leaving a redirect: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "ChrisO" to "ChrisO~enwiki" | ||
| (773 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| ''Old discussions now at ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ] / ]'' | |||
| '''Please add new comments below.''' | |||
| ==TheSmokingGun.com== | |||
| Greetings, | |||
| You participated in a previous discussion about TheSmokingGun.com and whether it can be considered a reliable source. I don't feel that a clear consensus was reached and have reopened the discussion , should you choose to participate. | |||
| Regardless, have a Happy New Year!--]] 20:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == NPOV == | |||
| No problem... I completely agree that this should be discussed (you will note that I started a thread for just such a discussion), and I made the edit expecting that my edit would be reverted. I have found that it often takes ''both'' opening a discussion ''and'' making a bold edit to generate a propper discussion. ] (]) 21:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :My experience too. Welcome to the ]. :-) -- ] (]) 21:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::the funny thing is that I have never said BRD was invalid... but I ''have'' said that discussion is needed ''first''. Good for the goose and all that. :>) ] (]) 22:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Probation tagging == | |||
| Thank you for adding the new ''climate change'' probation to the relevant talkpages. I seem to recall that there is a bot used for similar well-defined repetitive tasks by various WikiProjects - might not such a solution be easier? - ] <small>(])</small> 02:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Probably, but my knowledge of bots is about as extensive of my knowledge of the nightlife on Alpha Centauri... -- ] (]) 02:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks from me as well for your help, ] (]) 03:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::No problem. I left a question for you on the AN climate change discussion page, by the way. -- ] (]) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice of Complaint== | |||
| As required, this is the formal notice that I have filed complaint against you for violation of the Misplaced Pages censorship protocols that have been placed on the entries ] and ]. ] (]) 04:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Although I think you're probably right, Chris, don't mess with the complaint page any more. Let Nothughthomas do as he wishes and wait for somebody else to look at the situation. --] 04:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Okay. -- ] (]) 06:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == another scibaby sockpuppet? == | |||
| Has anybody run a checkuser on NoThoughtThomas yet? He sure went from zero to sixty in an instant. ] (]) 04:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :He may be a sockpuppet of ]. See ]. -- ] (]) 04:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Multi-user complaint is now being organized against ] for not making any effort to inform me of his sockpuppet investigation as required. Details will be forthcoming, '''as is required'''. ] (]) 07:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Objection == | |||
| I refer you to . Pursuant to that request I further request that you stop all tagging of climate change articles and revert any that you have already tagged until this matter is resolved. --] (]) 08:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration Request Notification == | |||
| You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] 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,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> | |||
| --] (]) 09:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Hubbard/Crowley archive open 4 jan == | |||
| I was asked to pass this on to you, and don't have an Email address: | |||
| --] (]) 14:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, already aware of it. :-) -- ] (]) 14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Reichstag == | |||
| It is good advice and I am sure you are only trying to help, but it is my suspicion that that user would prefer not to interact with you at the moment. Just a thought. Regards, - ] <small>(])</small> 18:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay. -- ] (]) 18:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009) == | |||
| The ''']''' of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by ] (]) 02:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == I am so out of it == | |||
| All of a sudden I find article on probation tags everywhere. I didn't see such a big effort to inform editors that this debate was going on and in fact I missed it completely. When I looked at the debate it seemed to involve a very small "in-crowd" and a few hacks. This hardly seems to be a community consensus. Whilst I have never been blocked and will always respond to reason I now feel I am treading on egg shells, I can never be ]. I think this could potentially backfire big style. This is an area where the crackpots nearly outnumber the "experts". It is NOT ''Barak Obama'' and it is not ''the Balkans'' (where nearly every editor is a crazy POV pusher anyway ;-) ). i also posted this comment on TS's talkpage. ] (]) 06:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == User Empowerment to Begin Aggressive Engagement == | |||
| ] apparently feels he has been empowered to "watch" me, and is construing "watch" as "go after". I say this on the basis of his style and manner of discussion here: | |||
| 1- ] | |||
| 2- ] | |||
| 3- ] | |||
| 4 -] | |||
| He may have been. | |||
| If he has not I would plead for you to exercise some type of intervention to bring this situation under control. With great reluctance I almost feel it would be better to perma-ban me at this point rather than let this spiral any further out of control. I've tried earnestly to disengage and retreat from any entry he appears in but he follows me from entry to entry with the apparent single purpose of challenging any content suggestion I make. This is very disruptive to the articles in question. Thank you in advance. Best Regards - ] (]) 12:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Your recent notice on my Talk page == | |||
| Chris, you know very well that I know the article is on probation. I do not acknowledge this latest reminder you have plastered on my talk page as being any notice of any wrongdoing on my part. If you think I am not acting properly I insist you say what it is that you think I am doing wrong. ] (]) 09:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Editing without consultation on an article on probation == | |||
| Chris, you are making controversial changes to the article redirected to by ] without prior discussion on the article's Talk page. Please take note that as the article is under probation that you should not be doing this. I ask that you revert and procede to the Talk page where we can decide by consensus if your changes are appropriate. Thank you, ] (]) 09:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I've explained on the article talk page. Please do not restore the material, as it's a very clear violation of ] and ]. Please also note that the article probation prohibits ], which includes "citing unencyclopedic sources". -- ] (]) 09:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:55, 30 April 2015
Redirect to: