Jump to content

User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

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)


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)

March 2009

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

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

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

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

Pietru ANI

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

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

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

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

Fasces and sickle

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

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

Note

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

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

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

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

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)

Resign

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)

The DRAMAOUT

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

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

Your expertise is needed

Boris,

I received an email:

Beautiful Russian Women Are Waiting to Meet You.
http://www.whalewaxyellow.com/click.cgi?sid=82438251&cid=6146921&ed=32754&eip=38100&ld=32754&lip=38100&url=t1
Online dating has brought a whole new meaning to finding your soul mate.
Your choices are no longer limited to the people in your hometown or county.

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

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

Explanation

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

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

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

Talk about assuming the worst! Rule 5 was a reminder to Stephan not to do anything that would reflect poorly on himself (see this link for further explanation). If you want to continue that condescending lecture about assuming good faith I'm all ears... just be sure to take your own advice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I completely misinterpreted this. I thought you were talking about this, which you linked higher in the talk page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The meaning is the same in both places. In future please be sure you know what you're talking about before you start flinging accusations of personal attacks and the like. I've looked at your history and you appear to have a habit of assuming the worst of people based on flimsy evidence. Not good. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Boris angry because he can no longer sound cryptic about Rule 5. Awickert (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the real rule 5. -Atmoz (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
So do I. But cabal secrets must be closely guarded. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no cabal, and this is not a secret message. 000393DB396E. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Neither is this. 66:6e:6f:72:64. Antandrus (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
57:65:62:65:72:6e:3f Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
4e:6f:20:63:61:62:61:6c:20:68:65:72:65:3f --GoRight (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
49:74:20:77:61:73:20:69:6e:20:74:68:65:20:63:69:67:61:72:2e Antandrus (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
WWVzIEdvUmlnaHQsIHRoZXJlIHJlYWxseSBpcyBubyBjYWJhbC4u --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
V2FybmluZzogU2VrcmV0IGVuY29kaW5nIGNvbXByb21pc2VkLiAgU3dpdGNoaW5nIHRvIGVuY3J5cHRpb24gdHlwZSAidy1lbmNvZGUiLg==
begin
L5&AE<F4@:7,@;F\@8V%B86PN("!,;VYG(&QI=F4@=&AE(&-A8F%L(2`@.BD`
`
end
--GoRight (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
6'9dFb"cC@8JD@BJG'KP)&4*6N-JBfpND@jR)'C[FL"dD'Pc)'Pc)(0KCQ8J,5"eG@9ZBfpNC5"cGA*P)'PcELGd --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Y'all must not want me in your cabal. The secret decoder ring you sent me decodes everything as either "a prize-in-every-package" or "the more you eat, the more you want." -Atmoz (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
One is the dash, one is the dot. The Morse is to be interpreted by pronouncing the letters as in Hungarian and interpreting the resulting sound as backwards spoken Xhosa. But shhhhhh! Mum's the word! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


I 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)

Spooferama

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

Ruth is stranger than Richard.[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)


Admin?

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

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 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)


"GWCab"

[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)

Discuss:

  • 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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shock_Brigade_Harvester_Boris/Archive_1&oldid=1087669876"