User talk:Chris Chittleborough
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This user is busy inreal life and probably will not respond swiftly to queries. |
Please reply to comments I make on the same page. I alwayswatch pages where I leave comments for at least a week. Replying there will make it easier for other users (and me — and perhaps even you) to follow our conversation. Thanks.
Please add new items at thebottom of this page. (Click here to do that.)
Archives |
Archive 1 9-Sep-2005 to 15-Jun-2007 |
Chris, I just wanted to give you a "heads up" that there's been some aggressive trimming of the "Protein Wisdom (blog)" article. Someone came in and took out some of the old material, but I had the impression that they were a little overaggressive. I attempted to add in a few details and got reverted. Since then I've added some more--more current--material, along with lavish citations/sources. But I'm hoping that the hyperaggressive pruner-of-entries will be happy and not revert all my recent changes. I'm wondering if you might be able to add the PW entry to your watch list and back me up if someone tries to gut it again.Scooge (talk)01:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I've gone back in and reinstated a lot of the material that was gutted from the entry, including the red pills. I'm afraid that my citation abilities are a little bit shaky, so I'm not positive that everything is back in the right place. Plus, the eviscerator will doubtless be back at some point. When I last reverted him, I pointed out that he can't remove sourced material and references without discussing it on the "talk" page first. We'll see what happens.Scooge (talk)16:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for rescuing my RSM image; I don't know why I couldn't figure out how to get it to show up, once I'd uploaded it. The process seemed intuitive enough in the past, but last night I got hung up--and then my sleeping pill started to kick in, so I realized I was NOT going to figure it out until after I slept.
BTW, the Ann Althouse POV-er is threatening to come back and mess with her entry, but there are already a few of us looking out for that one, so we should be able to deal with it.16:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I have declined your G4 speedy, after comparing this with the version deleted at AfD a year ago. The reason for deletion was lack of sources: that one had only two references, its own website and IMDb. This one has several more, including claims of 6 million Youtube views and a hoo-hah about allegations of it being censored. I think it is improved enough for G4 not to apply, but feel free to take it back to AfD. Regards,JohnCD (talk)17:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've listed you as an example of NPOV reasoning for the consensus in the Sowell article.
CartoonDiablo (talk)03:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've listed you as an example of NPOV reasoning for the consensus in the Sowell article.
CartoonDiablo (talk)03:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this continues I will have to ask for arbitration and a possible comment on your behavior. We reached an agreement in the discussion please abide by it.CartoonDiablo (talk)05:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 | Please accept thisinvite to join theConservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. –Lionel(talk)07:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
Welcome toWikiProject Conservatism! We are a growing community of editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles related toconservatism. Here's how you can get involved:
If you have any questions, feel free toask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! |
Discussion continued atTalk:Stephen McIntyre, copied here for convenient reading (with preceding message for context):
Any comments forTalk:Stephen McIntyre ?PerTalk:Climate_Audit#Add_May_2011_SciAm_article_on_Richard_A._Muller.99.181.140.243 (talk)04:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 | Melbourne Meetup
|
 | |
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup at North Melbourne this Saturday (23 July). Details and an attendee list are atWikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 16 Hope to see you there!JVbot (talk)05:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)(this automated message was delivered to all users atWikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne/Participants)[reply]
Hi, sorry to trouble you but a new WP user has come on the Littlejohn article and made massive unsupported changes including restoring the 'Johann Hari' section which you deleted with good reason. He/she seems very determined to get as much negative information in the article as possible. Your support on theTalk:Richard Littlejohn would be appreciated. Thank YouChristian1985 (talk)13:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Colleague,
I made small modifications to this page, but want you to know someone posted terms like "neo-con" to describe SSS. My notes can be seen on talk page. KarenKSRolph (talk)16:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris Chittleborough. I don't think your recent edits are necessarily a particularly good idea, and the edit summaies
and
are probably not indicative of aWP:NPOV approach. I understand that you may think that Steyn is the bee's knees, but this is probably not the best way to approach the article. The"Much more to come" edit summary on your last edit also gives me pause. How much more? This does not seem to have a been particularly notable incident, which is evidenced partly by the fact that it wasn't discussed in notable press venues. Beyond that, constructs such as "left-wing pro-censorship professor of journalism" and so forth are not usually a good idea, and perWP:BLP are probably not allowable. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but noteWP:NPOV as one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Also, Steyn himself is not a reliable source for most matters, seeWP:RS.
I went to a lot of trouble to look into this matter and I don't think it's very notable. If you want to refute this, we can talk, which discussion belongs on the article's talk page. Maybe we could run aWP:RFC on the matter or whatever, but the approach of just putting in what you want and only engaging via edit summaries is not recommended and it'd be a good idea of you make the case for the material on the article's talk page before proceeding any further down this path.Herostratus (talk)18:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ByLionelt
Welcome to the inaugural issue ofThe Right Stuff, the newsletter ofWikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal ofThe Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.
The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use abyline to "sign" their contributions. Just as withThe Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."
WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"
ByLionelt
A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve ithere. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaborationhere.
I am pleased to report that we have two new members:Rjensen andSoonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access toJSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less ofGeofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off someWikilove.
ByLionelt
On August 3rdPeter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article isRichard Nixon. Our congratulations toWehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views wasRick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry wereMichele Bachmann andTea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits wasRepublican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.
Hi Chris, I just learned about your brother and I wanted to offer my condolences. I see you're active at Mark Steyn--I'll put it on my watchlist. –Lionel(talk)06:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ByLionelt
The Right Stuff caught up withDank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator ofWikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.
Q: Tell us a little about yourself.
A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintainedWP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.
Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects?
A: I guess I'm most familiar withWP:MILHIST andWP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed atWP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.
Q: What makes a WikiProject successful?
A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership?
A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.
If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.
ByLionelt
The arbitration request submitted bySteven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of thePro-life andPro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede ofAbortion. A number of members are involved. On theEvidence pageArtifexMahem posted a table indicating thatDMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on theWorkshop page.
Last month it wasdecided that due to the success of the newDispute Resolution Noticeboard theContent Noticeboard would be shut down.Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.
ByLionelt
Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copyrestored to theIncubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts.Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN.
WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have asatellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated.
We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome toConservative Philosopher,Screwball23 andRegushee by showing them someWikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements toLinda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.
ByLionelt
On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism wasnominated for deletion by memberBinksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed byGuerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up byThe Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind".The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at theDiscuss This Story section, and also at theauthor's talk page.
Two days after the project was nominated, theConservatism Portal was alsonominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.
In other news, anew portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content isReflections on the Revolution in France byEdmund Burke.
October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike.Mwhite148 is a member of theUK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative,Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring ofWikilove.
Clickhere to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
ByLionelt
Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, wasnominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title isTimeline of modern American conservatism.
It's in the passport that he's using as his Facebook profile picture.https://www.facebook.com/jonkay88Vale of Glamorgan (talk)01:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that - I wasn't aware of the change, and it led me to the new Tinker book byWen Spencer,Elfhome, which probably should be added to his article.Dougweller (talk)14:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Just inviting you to theMelbourne meetup this Sunday at 11am, to celebrate our 11th anniversary. Details on that page. Hope to see you there!SteveBot (talk)01:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (on behalf of Steven Zhang)[reply]
ByLionelt
On January 21,The Conservatism Portal was promoted toFeatured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.
MemberEisfbnore significantly contributed to the successfulGood Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editorNils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted toFeatured Article.Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort byLecen. TheArticle Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded byMzk1 andTrackerseal successfully developedStar Parker to pass the notability guideline.
ByLionelt
Anotherdiscussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.
Inclusion of the articleKu Klux Klan (KKK) wasdebated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.
Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. MemberGoldblooded(pictured) volunteers for theUK Conservative Party andJohnChrysostom is aChristian Democrat.North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tellWikiProject Libertarianism he'sslumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share someWikilove.
Clickhere to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
ByLionelt
Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened(here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included inCampaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day theRick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC(here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of theBLP policy. Soon after a third was opened(here) atSantorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging theneologism article into thecontroversy article.
The Abortion caseclosed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as thepro-life andpro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.
Hi All. Just letting you know that we have another meetup planned for Melbourne, on Sunday, 26th February at 11am. More details can be found at themeetup page. Pizza will be provided. Look forward to seeing all of you there :-)SteveBot (talk)22:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, just a reminder that there's a meetup tomorrow at 11am in North Melbourne. There are more details at themeetup page. Hope to see you tomorrow!SteveBot (talk)03:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The articleScott Ott has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may bedeleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Sephiroth87 (talk)22:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris, thank you for that detailed explanation. I had found difficulties opening file types in the past and wanted to contribute by providing users with a source of info explaining how to do that. Going back I notice I made a mistake in editing the correct pages to begin with. GEO, GEM, GAF and the GB page edits were intended for the file types, I somehow mixed up those acronyms and edited different pages, so sorry about that! It's actually a tad embarrassing! Chris, what if I can't find a Wikipedia page for a particular file type, could I create one? Thanks in advance for your help.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAce Evanso (talk •contribs)09:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We've had this NPOV discussion before, to the point of settling it in arbitration. If you attempt to make any more violations NPOV it won't be arbitrated and it may result in blocking or banning.CartoonDiablo (talk)23:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, this is going to arbitration as well as a comment on your behavior. We've arbitrated the issue ad nausum and a consensus based on violations of NPOV is clearly not legitimate. If you think your KKK comparison will hold up then by all means go argue it but this has gone on long enough.CartoonDiablo (talk)18:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#section name 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,
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Thomas Sowell". Thank you.
Thanks for your participation there!Doniago (talk)17:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#section name 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,
— Precedingunsigned comment added byCartoonDiablo (talk •contribs)23:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, At last month's June meetup we discussed the idea of setting up a Training Course at a University of the Third Age (U3A) to be held in 2013 and namedBecoming a Wikipedia editor. In order to get this course up and running we are calling for volunteers to help develop the idea, and either tutor part of the course, or provide one on one help to students in the class. All local Wikipedians are welcome to discuss this at our 11am meetup to be held this Sunday on 22 July. Please add your name to the attending list atWikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 23. Food and beverages are provided.Cuddy Wifter (talk)02:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently editedJAR (file format), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSolaris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 |
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup next Sunday (6 January). Details and an attendee list are atWikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 26. Hope to see you there!John Vandenberg05:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(this automated message was delivered usingreplace.py to all users inVictoria)
Why was legitimate criticism of some of his viewpoints removed? There were 2 primary sources and one secondary. The format wasn't much different from the criticism given by Sam Harris, don't see an issue.Ethanwashere (talk)23:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your edit again[2] toThe Post-American World. Not liking the reviewer is not a valid reason to remove the review. Has Newsweek retracted the article? Was there something flawed with that specific review? From the edit summary, your rationale seems to be that the reviewer did something bad and therefore all his work is now irrelevant. That is conveniently listed atList of fallacies#Red herring fallacies.maclean (talk)18:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to{{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.
You are being notified as a member on the list ofWP:AUS
Nbound (talk)06:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Please do not insert your POV into the Henderson article or I will seek arbitration against you.
Warm regards
14.202.192.46 (talk)12:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris
Just came acrossyour posting in the wikipediocracy forum about GMO related articles, in a thread in which I was (negatively) mentioned. I've put a lot of work into GM-related articles to make them NPOV, and I have noticed that most of the anti-GMO crowd don't know squat about farming. Your post interested me, as I would love to see more farm-savvy people working on ag-related stuff. So please know that I would love it if you came and did some work. I also want to say that I don't agree with what you wrote in that post. My sense (and I would need to find RS to back this up) is that crops like soy and corn were genetically modified first because a) there was less risk of cross-pollination and b) (crudely stated) food made from them are not as central to the core concept of "food" as bread is and so there was less risk of popular backlash. In any case, the public reason why Monsanto abandoned its GM wheat project ~2004 was that farmers feared that they would lose export market share (http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/crops/22.genetically_modified_wheat.html). I have not seen any source that have said that there is no GM wheat because the wheat strains that were being modified were inferior, and I am curious where you get that from. Anyway, happy to talk more, if you like!Jytdog (talk)23:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 | Adelaide Meetup Next: T.B.A. Last:12 April 2025 This box:view • talk • edit |
More infohere. Cheers,Pdfpdf (talk)11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop removing legitimate additions to the Chris Kenny article. They are not libellous, inaccurate or violate WP:BLP.
It is highly relevant that comments from Chris Kenny's own son be added as is the verifiable fact that his comments did cause controversy.
You clearly have a problem with following/understanding the WP:BLP guidelines so happy to take this to arbitration.— Precedingunsigned comment added by60.242.37.97 (talk •contribs)21:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you come to en.wiki anymore? Thanks.OccultZone(Talk •Contributions •Log)06:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you have previously indicated that you would be interested in attendingMelbourne meetups. A meetup will be held on Wednesday August 12, 2015 6-8pm. Please check outWikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 29 for details and add your name to the list if you think you can attend. --Michael Billington (talk)12:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Chris, as much time as you have, I saw you liking my edit onDavid Drake. Thanks for this. :) Want to ask you if you know otherscience fiction,fantasy andhistorical fiction authors that need such seperation of their bibliographies? They are just getting out of proportion. Any help is appreciated.
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)13:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploadingFile:WeeklyStandard-cover-2005-05-30.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)03:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Chris Chittleborough. Voting in the2016 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.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please reviewthe candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The articleGlitz (software) has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may bedeleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Ysangkok (talk)15:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleGlitz (software) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glitz (software) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Ysangkok (talk)14:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Chris Chittleborough. Voting in the2017 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.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
| Melbourne Meetup
|
| |
Hi, I've just made adoodle poll to vote on the best date for the next Wikimeetup in Melbourne (Beer Deluxe, Fed Square). Would be great to see you there.T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk12:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Date of nextMelbourne meetup decided:
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk01:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ByLionelt
Fellow members, I'm pleased to announce the return of the newsletter ofWikiProject Conservatism. And considering the recentdownsizing atThe Signpost the timing could not be better.The Right Stuff will help keep you apprised of what's happening in conservatism at Wikipedia and in the world.The Right Stuff welcomes submissions including position pieces, instructional articles, or short essays addressing important conservatism-related issues. Post submissionshere.
Add theProject Discussion page to your watchlist for the latest updates at WikiProject ConservatismWatch(Discuss this story)ByLionelt
After aseries of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and adminAndrevan was the subject of anArbitration case for conduct unbecoming. Prior to the case getting underway Andrevan resigned as bureaucrat and admin. A widely discussed incident was when he suggested that some editors he described as "pro-Trump" were paid Russian agents. This resulted in a number of editors from varied quarters denouncing the allegations and voicing support for veteran editors includingWinkelvi and the notoriousMONGO.
Editors who faced Enforcement action includeSPECIFICO (no action),Factchecker atyourservice (three month topic ban ARBAPDS),Netoholic (no action) andAnythingyouwant (indef topic ban ARBAPDS).(Discuss this story)ByLionelt
Breitbart News, in response to Facebook's decision to use Wikipedia as a source to fight fake news, has declared war on our beloved pedia. Thearticle inHaaretz describes the Facebook arrangement as Wikipedia's "greatest test in years" as well as a "massive threat" to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.Breitbart's targeting of Wikipedia has resulted in an "epic battle" with respect to editing at the Breitbart article. The article has also recently experienced a dramatic increase in traffic with 50,000 visitors according toHaaretz. There is no love lost betweenBreitbart and Wikipedia where editors at theReliable Sources Noticeboard have criticized the news websites unreliability and have compared it toThe Daily Mail.(Discuss this story)ByLionelt
Delivered: 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
ByLionelt
WikiProject Conservatism was atopic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by theWP:Canvassing guideline.
At one point the discussion segued to feedback aboutThe Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."
Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion.Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.
Add theProject Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject ConservatismWatch(Discuss this story)ByLionelt
Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the newWikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations toNeveselbert. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your articlehere.(Discuss this story)ByLionelt
Reprinted in part from theApril 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written byZarasophos
 | This graph was using thelegacy Graph extension, which is no longer supported. It needs to be converted to thenew Chart extension. |
Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to arecent survey . The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a "boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included ananalysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:
In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey atThe Signpost andalso at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideashere.
(Discuss this story)Delivered: 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Chris Chittleborough. Voting in the2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to drop you a note and let you know that I appreciate you for taking the time to begin a talk page discussion, as well as respond to a user, to explainWP:BLPPRIMARY as well asWP:BLPRS regarding my edits toTim Blair. Your knowledge of Wikipedia policy and your experience shines bright with your ability to communicate and explain things in a civil manner. Thank you very much for doing that. :-)~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)12:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris. I can see you take a strong interest in editing articles about conservative bloggers. You have persistently deleted my edits on the Tim Blair article but declined to talk about your reasons. I have opened a talk here, and would prefer you engage with me in conversation before wholesale deleting my edits again.
My article edit contains primary sources and links to publicly accessible court rulings this issue. If you review the judgement, the Court made (a) numerous findings of fact, and (b) a determination. If you prefer, we can adopt secondary sources instead from several law journals discussing the case, but the direct link to the Court's findings is stronger as a primary source, and the law journals will not be accessible to readers unless they have access to a law library. I have not included transcripts of Blair's testimony, evidence briefs, or court documents in my materials, which would breach BLP:PRIMARY.
The SBS and Crikey quotations are secondary sources within Wiki's rules. I have been careful with NPOV, language, focus and tone when using those sources. I cannot find any other reputable sources discussing the case, but would welcome further opinions or viewpoints from other eminent analysts if you have some to contribute.
I am unable to agree with your assessment that my edits should be removed because you view the matter as a "minor kerfuffle". Mr Blair is a professional and prominent journalist and a common law Court of Australia accepted a case for consideration and made findings of fact and law about his writing which are significant.
I am also unable to agree with your assessment that the edits should be removed because you believe Mr Blair is a humourist in the "ha ha, only serious" kind of vein. That claim carries no objective meaning, is a matter of opinion, not fact, and carries no probative value on whether my edits are accurate/inaccurate, or whether they fall within Wiki's rules.
I note your history of edits being protective of conservative bloggers. I'd like to hear your reasons for wholesale deletion. I'd also welcome opinions from other third parties who are dispassionate.
Please respond to my talk before deleting my edits in their entirety again.— Precedingunsigned comment added byPandy Sydney (talk •contribs)06:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it's worth requesting some form of protection onZina Bash?Marquardtika (talk)19:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
| Hello! Voting in the2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
| Adelaide Meetup Next:6 March 2020 Last:19 May 2018 |
WikiProject AdelaideMeetup 22 has been hastily arranged, spread the word!
DATE: Friday 6 March 2020
TIME: 5.00–6.30 pm
VENUE: Cafe Amore, 162-170 Pulteney St, Adelaide
Celebrate the long weekend with a meet-up and discuss what you'd like to see in the world of Wikimedia in 2020. Sign-up and RSVPhere.
Sent byMediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf ofWikipedia:WikiProject Adelaide at22:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC). You received this message because your user page is inCategory:Wikipedians in South Australia. If you do not wish to receive future notifications, please adviseWikipedia talk:Meetup/Adelaide.[reply]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirectBlair's Law. The discussion will occur atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 12#Blair's Law until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t ·c)buidhe17:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
| Hello! Voting in the2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronic Logic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
IceWelder [✉]09:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
| Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleGrapple (network layer), to which you havesignificantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should bedeleted.
The discussion will take place atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grapple (network layer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visitthe configuration page. Delivered bySDZeroBot (talk)01:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The articleFlatspace has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Game never receivedWP:SIGCOV or any reviews in reliable sources.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may bedeleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Jontesta (talk)17:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on thevoting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, pleasereview the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF)23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
