![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
TTT
test
Hi DrChrissy, just wanted to say thanks for your participation at the ref desks! A quick glance here shows you are also very active at improving WP mainspace, so thanks for that too. I keep meaning to do more for articles, but I usually only have the attention span to make minor grammar edits, and deal with higher level stuff as one-offs at the ref desk :) SemanticMantis ( talk) 00:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Here in the US we welcome every opportunity for a holiday!! If it were left up to our school children, they would transpose the number of school days with the number of holidays. DrChrissy, I sympathize with what you're going through with the waves battering against your shoreline. It's erosive, even against solid rock. Sometimes the behavior I've witnessed at the drama boards reminds me a little of the book, "Cannibalism, Ecology and Evolution Among Diverse Taxa" published by the Oxford University Press. Perhaps it has something to do with the book's description per the NYT "that when animals eat their own species they are not just looking for another meal but also seeking to destroy competitors", [1]. Granted, it's a rather extreme hyperbole, so I will AGF by saying that I can't imagine any editor who doesn't want to edit unencumbered or be shackled by mass confusion. I've also heard that when a storm moves inland, it dissipates so the best thing to do is just batten down the hatches and ride it out. Can you believe the holidays are upon us? Wow. Atsme 📞 📧 18:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy, I just want to add that I can very much empathize with how stressful that AN discussion must be for you, and I want to offer you my sincere hopes that you can be of good cheer nonetheless. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmm...I think DrChrissy's proposal has merit and might just fit the project if presented properly to the Foundation via the IdeaLab, [2]. What could it hurt if he/we at least presented his idea for consideration? Atsme 📞 📧 22:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy, you found a page that I completely forgot about - User talk:Atsme/Banners. In fact, I created User:Atsme/Banners because I couldn't find the other one! 👀 Now I know where it is and will figure out some way to merge the two. Thank you! Atsme 📞 📧 16:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissy, I just wanted you to know that I'm not trying to actually remove that passage on the FAWC data. I just can't figure out what it's trying to say. As it stands, it's looks nonsequitur, is unclear, and looks like original analysis. I left (will leave) some details of what I mean on the talk page. DrAlso ( talk) 20:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissy, On the DT talk page I added a detailed analysis of the logic errors, innuendo, etc. in the first paragraph of the "Welfare Concerns" section. Would you like a crack at addressing it? DrAlso ( talk) 08:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
See the link when you get a chance. It's one of the reasons I was reluctant in using the photo. [3] I'll do some further checking on Commons. Thanks in advance... Atsme 📞 📧 20:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | |
Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!! | |
What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water, | |
...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉 | |
Pure pun-ishment. [4] |
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.
2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.
3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.
7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.
11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
Sorry to be so blunt - but Dennis made it clear that he wanted a break from all of this. Maybe look somewhere else? — Ched : ? 01:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I just went through all of JzG's edits at the Seralini affair page, and there actually is no violation of 1RR, although it came close. Please don't comment on it any further, because that page is part of your topic ban, and any further comment about it is going to get you blocked. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Its likely that the comment on JzG's section violates the GMO topic ban you are under. You might want to strike/remove it. AlbinoFerret 18:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
And you definitely want to strike this [5]. That in no way, shape or form falls under the exemptions in BANEX. You're not asking for clarification or appealing the ban in the proper venue. Capeo ( talk) 16:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I have opened a section on you at WP:AE regarding your recent violation of your topic ban. Please comment there. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
|
I wish you and your family Seasons Greetings and a very Happy New Year
Gandydancer (
talk)
18:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄 |
Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw (talk) |
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a note to let you know that your recent ARCA request has been
archived.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Mdann52 (
talk)
17:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo, I have posted below my appeal for a request to ArbCom to amend a decision of theirs. This has now been archived. As I indicated on your talk page, I believe this is a matter of principle in the way that Wikipedia operates, rather than just a single decision abut a single editor's behaviour. I have been topic banned from an area in which I have never edited. Despite my asking for evidence of such editing, none has been produced by any user or arbitrator. I feel it is a very dangerous precedent for ArbCom to ban editors from places they have not even edited, let alone disrupted.
[8] [9] [10] [11] [12]) but these were all unrelated to GM-plants.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Genetically_modified_organisms_2. Guy ( Help!) 00:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
LesVegas (
talk)
15:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Some very good comments here and here. SageRad ( talk) 19:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
...to let you know about the comment I left on the talk page of Emotion in animals. Best Regards, Bfpage | leave a message 01:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Floquenbeam (
talk)
20:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Useful links:
-- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, this message is inform you that a motion pertaining to you has been proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 03:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@ SageRad: I agree entirely with you regarding the broadening of topic bans. I too have just had my topic ban considerably extended. here This has been without any evidence provided at any stage of the case and its fall-out that my editing was problematic in this broadened area. How can this process of substantially extending topic bans simply ignore the process which which has been set up to be fair and to be seen to be fair (although this is arguable in itself). There are also 2 other aspects to consider. One is the change in Arbcom members during these topic ban broadenings. This is like changing the judges halfway through a case - surely in such a complex case a re-trial would be expected. The second aspect is a psychological one. New members of ArbCom are extremely unlikely in their first dealing to argue or vote against a previous ArbCom finding. Moreover, they would be very keen to prove themselves as being very decisive and keen to comment/vote - this can be seen in some of the comments put next to votes (a practice I believe is totally unnecessary and very often inflammatory.
But I really just wanted to say one thing, having been familiar with you for a few years now: please stop digging. You're in a hole, stop digging. There is a way out of the hole, but this is not it. You can blame ArbCom all you want, but ArbCom does its work based on what evidence is presented. Getting in good graces with ArbCom is not really where it's at since ArbCom also responds to what the community has to say: it's community members you have to win for your case. You won't win Jytdog, it seems to me, but that latest AE case easily sways a more neutral observer away from your case. All the best, Drmies ( talk) 02:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@ User:Drmies, thank you for your comments.DrChrissy (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy's topic ban which currently states that "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."
For the Arbitration Committee Amortias ( T)( C) 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@ I am One of Many: Thank you for your comment here. [16] It is always nice to receive compliments for the quality of one's content editing. Much appreciated.DrChrissy (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@ SageRad: Hi Sage, you might be interested in this thread [17] which started today. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grimace scale (animals), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Post hoc and CBA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit on the noticeboard. I've been farming most of my life, and I've discovered that while some of the old wives' tales are nonsense, some are true. I don't know if there are any actual scientific studies on hair whorls, but I always heard that the location of the whorl on the head had to do with the formation of the animal's brain. (And where I live, the superstition is that a whorl in the middle of the forehead means a good horse, a whorl above the eyes means a high-strung horse, and a whorl far down on the face means a stupid one.) But temperaments have been selectively bred for, as anybody who's ever had animals knows ( Great Pyrenees can be trusted with baby animals because they have been bred for guard work-- Thoroughbreds are high-strung because they are bred to have a great drive to run, etc.) Some of it you have to learn through experience and can't get from reading stuff on the internet. And some theories sound good in print but do not work in reality. White Arabian Filly ( Neigh) 23:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm unsure whether my posting here might be unwelcome, but I hope that it's OK. I just saw what you said at another page about your problems with diabetes and the risk that you might have to have amputations, and very truly, my heart went out to you. I feel very sad that you are going through such difficulties, and I hope that you will have a good recovery. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Trypto. Thanks for your obviously sincere and genuine concern. Diabetes is a terrible disease for many reasons. I would tell you more, however, I believe there are others out there who might actually use that against me as a violation of my topic ban. Yes, I actually believe that - what a sad state of affairs. Thanks again for your concern.DrChrissy (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
People don't often express appreciation for being prompted to re-read something. Having seen more of your comments, I believe you were being absolutely sincere. I'm both embarrassed and relieved to learn my interpretation was not correct, and I sincerely apologize for my misunderstanding. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 21:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Your
comment at RSN raised an interesting point: a
search in The Blind Watchmaker brings up no examples of "intelligent design", but from my own copy Dawkins in his preface refers to "complex design", one of many terms for the
teleological argument, on pages 4–6 he discusses
William Paley's Natural Theology version of that argument.
Our
intelligent design article briefly mentions theological predecessors of the term, and in
a footnote gives example of 19th century use of the phrase when discussing God's works and "intelligent direction".
On the first amendment's influence,
Timeline of intelligent design outlines the series of court cases which led to "scientific creationism" being rebranded as
creation science. After teaching that in public school science classrooms was ruled unconstitutional by
Edwards v. Aguillard, the term intelligent design
was substituted, with the claim that this was a NASA phrase being used for a new science. Hope you find these clarifications helpful. . .
dave souza,
talk
10:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC).Re: " I think we are now all warned"; no, that doesn't count, but now you're warned. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC).
I saw that you had reverted my last edit of the above page, also saying i had deleted a load of posts on the talk page. I was glad to hear the last point, because I didn't think I had - I was editing only the article itself. I ddi delete some code which might have had that effect on the talk page. If so, I regret that as I believe previous discussions on talk pages should only ever be edited by the person who made them, or with their permission. Perhaps you can tell me or point me to info which will prevent me doing this again? As a separate issue I think my reversion to exclude commodity status was correct, as the extensive discussion is going round in circles with no end in sight. This to me shows it is a dubious phrase to use in this context. Any comments welcome, thanks in advance. TonyClarke ( talk) 11:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there,
Leaving this message for you as I think this is something in your wheelhouse. I stumbled across the article for bile bear tonight and was unpleasantly surprised to find that, first off and most glaringly, the lead mentions nothing at all about animal welfare, [lack of] medicinal efficacy, and other sub-topics that would, I imagine, constitute a good portion of decent sources. It also had several odd bits of fluff (for example, the section ostensibly on farmed bear statistics started with an unsourced paragraph about an initiative to release some bears) and a whole lot of unsourced or poorly sourced content. I removed some things and tagged it, but it's late and I don't see myself having time to do any serious review of this in the near future. My hope is that it's something you may want to take a look at. I may also post to WikiProject Animal Welfare, although I don't know how active that WikiProject is...
Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
welcome on Talk:Chicken#Claim_of_holocene_domestication_... Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
If you want to revert back you will need to undo another edit. You just removed my notice that I fixed the table. To revert the table back you will need to undo this . -- GB fan 19:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The consensus is that you don't have a leg to stand on. If you actually took the time to read what folks have been telling you, you'd see that you have little to no chance of getting what you want, and the longer it dragged on, the more likely you would have received a block. I did you a favor. Now don't bother me about this again. Drop the stick. -- Tarage ( talk) 21:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear DrChrissy, is this your twilight time on Wikipedia? It pisses me off. I've enjoyed collaborating with you on some significant articles on Wikipedia where you and I, and only you and I, maintain standards. If you are going to persist in that most quixotic activity on Wikipedia – questing for justice, rationality, decency... whatever... on such unlikely venues as odious drama boards and surreal "arbcom deliberation" pages, then the outcome is simple. They will do what they always do and run a sword through you (siteban you). It sounds like you are running your health down also. If I could command and control you, I would direct you stop dead in the water right now, radically reassess and learn buddhist meditation. But since I can't control you, should I prepare a requiem for you? -- Epipelagic ( talk) 06:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
That's news to me. I've been doing it for over two years, I often see others do it, and yours is the first hint that it's "frowned upon". It's useful information about the nature of my edit. Can you say why it's frowned upon? ― Mandruss ☎ 17:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I saw that you reverted my edit in Cheetah with good faith. Thanks for your vigilance. Actually I am in the course of improving the article, and trying as much as possible to keep the article ready for readers any moment. Not all can be worked out in my sandbox. I assure you that I will try to make it look better even whilst I am working on it. Presently I am re-adding info from the old revision, but that will be tomorrow, late here. Thanks again. Sainsf <^> Talk all words 18:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
IP addresses are not "registered". IPv6 addresses are substantially more dynamic than IPv4 addresses. You have to look at subnet masks, usually at least the /64. Guy ( Help!) 22:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@ JzG: Just so we can be crystal clear on this, you are now banned from my Talk page.DrChrissy (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits, but I would like to know what exactly you did to the introduction of "Ecology and behaviour", where they discuss territories. I am on vacation from this but I managed to drop by and add some stuff. You see, I tried to keep as much as I could of the original material, it was good but unsourced. I had to remove a few points but I have a lot of literature to look in, so if it were true I could re-add it. Presently the section shows a lot of redundancy as both the previous material as well as my edits are there. The subheadings look wrongly placed, too. Should I contact editors at the article talk page? But whom should I contact? And the issue as far as I can see is the expansion; I am taking care not to delete anything unduly (don't know what happened to "Vocalizations", it was deleted by mistake I am afraid). I will resume editing when we reach a consensus and, of course, if I am free. I love this article, and wish to take this to FA status through collaboration if others wish to help here. If I have done something wrong, please tell me and I will rectify my error. Thank you. Sainsf <^> Talk all words 12:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It feels a little odd for me to be giving advice to someone who is probably a better and more experienced writer than I am, but one of the aspects I have the most experience with by now is revising WP articles. The most difficult thing to do is in revising is to deal with duplication; either when one finds existing duplication or when one feels it necessary to put new material what would duplicate material that is already less well stated in another place in an article. When people are trying to make a case for something, they often fall into the pattern of saying some of the key points several times in several places. I know I tend to do that when I am deliberately advocating for something, and I assume I do it also when I fell about something strongly even if I do not at the time recognize it. I think some of it is that one cares very much and wants to make sure one has said it, and also that one takes what will have an emotional impact and -- in addition to putting it wherever it really logically belongs-- one puts it both in the beginning to set the expectations, and then again at the end to leave the intended impression.
Further, when people are deliberately or unconsciously advocating, They also tend to bring in fully sufficient background to make sure the reader is seeing the actual subject in what they think is the proper overall context. This may be necessary in stand-alone writing, but it isn't in a collected work like this, where the related information is given by linking. A further technique that is easy to do in works like this is to use illustrations, and especially multiple similar illustrations, which will leave more of an emotional than an informative purpose. The art of doing conceal advocacy consists doing these things without making the advocacy obvious by actually stating what the reader is intended to conclude. I see all three of these in the article on Pain in crustaceans --I turned to that one of your examples first, because it is also a topic where I have myself strong feelings that are the same as yours-- and I looked at Bile Bear for similar reasons. I have no idea if they were deliberate or unconscious. I'm not going to deal further with this or the other articles; I generally avoid working on articles where I have strong feelings just as I avoid persistently working on any article where I encounter strong opposition. I'm not really bother by encountering this sort of writing when I oppose the implied or explicit viewpoint--I expect it from my ideological opponents. I'm much more concerned with it when I actually agree. I feel I owe it to you to expand on my comment at ANI, where I wanted to avoid detail. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I did not add the section itself i just corrected an obvious error!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apfan ( talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, DrChrissy - the reason Alligator gar specifically stated "anecdotal reports" and anecdotal evidence in scientific reports is because that's exactly what they are - anecdotal, no scientific proof, word of mouth, supposition - in other words, there are no "official reports" and no scientific evidence to confirm or deny the claim; therefore, it's still considered "anecdotal". We cannot say anything in WP voice that is not official or verifiable, especially when the cited sources use the words claim, or "it has been reported", or refer to it as "anecdotal evidence". I know you were trying to be helpful but I don't think it's accurate to say in WP voice that they can grow to be 10 ft. The verifiable facts tell us that they get heavier not longer after they reach a certain size (under 10 ft.) - refer to the official records which verify the largest alligator gar ever caught and recorded was about 8-1/2 ft. long. Following are some official verifiable reports that support what I'm saying is accurate about how their weight increases rather than their length, [22], [23], [24]. I went ahead and put the information back the way it was when it passed the GA review. Thanks for giving me another opportunity to research and check for verifiable information that would justify the removal of anecdotal. I simply don't believe we're there, yet. Atsme 📞 📧 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I do hope your topic ban gets lifted - it most certainly does look as if it will happen. Regards, -- Ches (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi friend! I am sorry if I am being impatient, but it looks like it is only you, me and Mcelite who are discussing the changes made to the article. I feel you are busy in other things at the moment, and even Mcelite is not available. As our discussions are progressing slowly, I can not work on the article. I assure you that I will make changes carefully and according to the standards followed in Tiger and Lion. Please do not revert the changes made by me before seeking an explanation from me; I carefully add appropriate info along with credible sources. Details like the arrangement of sections, renaming them can be taken care of at the Good Article review stage, we need not worry about this too much now. I have experience having worked on several articles in the past. Please allow me to continue with the article. Thanks. Sainsf <^> Talk all words 18:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
About the revert, I could not get why you reverted it. You see, I am working on the full text of the section and the subsections are really troublesome in the meantime. Please understand. I believe the Ecology section will be done by tomorrow. Please don't revert Speed as well! Sainsf <^> Talk all words 19:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zoopharmacognosy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Woolly bear. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up that article, and apologies if I edit-conflicted with you at some point. If you get fed up with it, ping me and I can finish up. Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 18:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I have completed work on most of the article, except the lead, status and threats, and conservation sections. You may like to check the improvements. I will complete my work on the article in the next few weeks and nominate this at the GAN. Sainsf <^> Feel at home 13:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Food and drink prohibitions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balut. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia categorisation system is hierarchical. If an article is in the category "Animals in China" it should not also be in the category "Animals". because "Animals in China" is included in the category "Animals". Otherwise the top categories become unmanageably big. The point of categories is to help users find articles they might not know exist. They need to be fairly small, ideally to fit on a page, so they can easily be scanned. I suggest you read WP:SUBCAT. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
please come to my talk page to make it full
Hey Dr. Chrissy,
Just wanted to thank you for resolving the dispute over the usage of "nuclear family" with regards to the Wikipage on the coyote. I have from time to time made revisions on Wikipedia, many times to only see those revisions get changed. I thought in this particular case that my logic was sound, why Massone enjoys the use of this term in this instance baffles me, especially when one looks at the Wikipage on nuclear family!!
Can coyotes be married?!! LOL.
Sincerely, AA Pilot
I see you keep an eye on the cheetah article. A user, Sainsf, made a large number of edits a few weeks back, and I am less than impressed with them. I don't think the prose is particularly great, but the real gripe is that his modifications have completed mangled some of the sourcing and introduced outdated sources with regards to top speed and the like. Would you back me up if I reverted everything he has done and re-added it more carefully? I'm sure some of it must be useful. -- BowlAndSpoon ( talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
A lot of vandalism by IPs has been going on here, I and others are tired of reverting these edits. I see you are an administrator, could you guide me on what can be done here? Thanks, Sainsf <^> Feel at home 08:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#DrChrissy_.28yet_again.29
I assume you are familiar with the drill.
jps ( talk) 18:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
You are being baited as was I. Just walk away and let an admin deal with it. Once you make your points attempting to rebut every allegation that is created will only frustrate you and create a wall of text no admin will wade through. Let the major points on both sides be clear and clearly seen; let the rest fall back into the shadows where they belong.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC))
"Wolves kill dogs wherever the two canids occur." Just because one authority says this, that does not make it a generalization across the English-speaking Wikipedia. Other writers disagree. Regards, William Harris • talk • 20:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I cannot see your arguments for deleting the Ant section on Mirror Test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.244.180 ( talk) 03:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dr Chrissy, thank you for helping improve the animal welfare page in the UK. I personally don't know a great deal about specific UK animal welfare issues (not from the UK), only from what I've picked up from reading online UK papers. I'm sure some local UK editors will build up the page.
The animal welfare proposals section has just one source at the moment (the Ulster Unionist party), which is only because I happened upon that information while I was researching online articles to do with animal cruelty sentencing laws around the UK - and I thought "aha", a "proposals" section would be a good growth section to get people thinking about the possibilities regarding animal welfare. Anticla rutila ( talk) 06:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
This reminded me of what happened here a few weeks ago! If you haven't seen it yet, hope you enjoy. :-) -- Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I've appended some additional comments. Just a minor mix-up that needs fixing, and it should be ready to go. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pain in crustaceans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaerobic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissy,
Just had a quick question regarding your revision of the content added yesterday to the Human Penis page by @ 123hs:. Was the revision due to our use of American English or was it also the content we had added/edited? Just wanted to see if it would be possible to put the content additions back in if we make sure we use the American English or whether there was a problem with the content?
Thank you in advance! JS.Chester ( talk) 10:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry DrChrissy, but following on from the Quackery discussion below, at
WP:RESTRICT your Tban is logged as "from human health and medicine, and WP:MEDRS related discussions, broadly construed." It seems like your recent involvement at the article mentioned in this section would very easily be seen as falling under this, probably best to disengage there as well. Thanks...
Zad
68
16:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
No problem, let's get some clarity before it becomes an issue, I have opened at thread at ANI
here.
Zad
68
18:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Aren't you topic-banned wrt human health? Alexbrn ( talk) 16:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your addition to this article. Actually, the "borrowed" material may suggest a warning function but does not provide proof of it. The existing text carefully steers a course through the rather thin evidence; the new material basically doubles the length of the section without adding very much in the way of evidence. I'd be minded to cut it, unless you know something about it that I don't, i.e. a whole lot more sources describing experimental observations! Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Theory of mind in animals at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
BlueMoonset (
talk)
06:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, DrChrissy. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I saw that you have indicated on your user page your retirement from editing, and I was saddened to see that. I know that you have sometimes not seen eye to eye with me on some issues, but I hope that you will accept my saying this as being said very sincerely. Yes, dealing with people on Wikipedia can be quite trying. And it can be a very positive move to just take a good long break and clear one's mind. But I sincerely do hope that you will eventually come back, at some time when it feels right for you. My best wishes, -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Tryptofish:@ Epipelagic: Hi Both. Thank you for these kind comments. After a shortish break, I now feel the desire to come out of retirement. I am still very unhappy about the CCI request hanging over my head, especially because it looks like things move very slowly over there, but I guess I will have to live with that for the moment. Thanks both for your encouragement to return - it means a lot to me. @Epi, I remember you asking an editor (who shall remain nameless) whether they used software for monitoring close paraphrasing. Do you know if/where this is available so I can scan my own work? I have used on-line plaigerism checkers in the past, but these are not sensitive to paraphrasing. (I had the bad experience once of doing some paid web writing for a veterinary firm. I wanted to say "The main symptoms of the disease are X, Y and Z". The firm refused to pay me, saying the article was not totally original because other sites had previously published all possible combinations and permutations of X, Y and Z!) DrChrissy (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
{{Ping|Epipelagic}}
gives @
Epipelagic:. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
21:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help at the teahouse, so here is a big smiley for you!
East Anglian Regional (
talk)
17:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Theory of mind in animals at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
BlueMoonset (
talk)
16:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Knew there had to be a scientific explanation of why modern cat food causes cats to over-eat and develop premature health problems. What I didn’t know is how much pet food manufactures have been beguiling veterinarians. So, although I don't claim to have squared the circle on this, the following two links go to sites that seem to match my experiences almost exactly. feline-nutrition and the misguided pointlessness of Therapeutic Diets. So may your cat live long, prosper and regain her dress size 8 figure again.-- Aspro ( talk) 19:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Theory of mind in horses? http://www.thehorse.com/articles/37681/study-confirms-horses-talk-to-human-handlers Montanabw (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissy. Can I politely request that you not post there again? I don't think it will help anybody if you continue. Thanks for your cooperation. -- John ( talk) 19:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions. It seems that you may have added
public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia
guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at
Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an
attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk)
19:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
This action, which I am sure was well-intentioned, seems to have failed to achieve anything except to cause great drama and bring out some strong opinions that you should be restricted from continuing to post complaints. While I do not think there is a consensus there for any action against you (or User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc), I think the courteous thing to do now would be to withdraw the complaint, and try to avoid User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc for a while. If you see anything egregious from them, you can always ping me or another admin. I would also like you to commit to a voluntary absence from the complaints procedure for a while. Edits like this one are greatly appreciated and you should make more of them. This is not a formal admin warning, but a friendly suggestion as to how I think the matter should best be progressed now. -- John ( talk) 22:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Please don't ever cast aspersions about my motives for having an opinion again, as you did yesterday at ANI.
This isn't a request for discussion, and I don't want, nor will I entertain one, it's a strong request that you not repeat that behaviour.
You are fortunate I don't care enough to pursue that. I'll assume you were under pressure and lashed out, as is your wont.
Good day. Begoon talk 14:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, DrChrissy. Reading the AN thread that you started recently, asking for sanctions against jps, [26] I had a thought. You'll recollect a boomerang request was started but didn't go anywhere, reasonably enough, as you had been told by two admins that such a request would be OK on AN. But it made me reflect. When you started editing in 2011, you only had a tiny percentage of edits to Wikipedia space: less than 1%, as against 90% to article space. [27] Clearly you came here for the purpose of adding high-quality content, not for arguing. Your proportion of edits to WP space remained very modest up to 2014. But since then you seem to have shifted more and more towards arguing on the noticeboards. 10% of your edits were to WP space in 2015, and 18% in 2016. Less than 50% were to article space in both 2015 and 2016. It seems a pity. Your interest is in animals and animal behaviour, and I'm impressed by the list of articles (created or developed) on your userpage. Isn't that would you should be doing here? I understand that some strong feelings have drawn you more and more to the noticeboards. But it isn't actually any fun, is it? It can't be any fun at all when respected users say things like "DrChrissy is incapable of resisting an opportunity to waste community time". [28] How about getting back to your original focus on the birds and the other animals, perhaps by means a self-ban for three months or whatever from WP space? I self-banned myself from ANI in September 2015, [29] and enjoyed it so much I extended it for another three months when it was over. I hope you try it. Regards, Bishonen | talk 20:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC).
I hesitated what to say here, but I feel that I want to follow up. It would be a pity if this talk thread were to end on a note of nasty tricks and escalation. I do hope that this discussion ends up focusing on the positive, not the negative. I think that Bishonen's opening message was a good one, and I hope that it's where the focus will be. Like Montanabw and Epipelagic, I have enjoyed editing content with DrChrissy. That's a positive thing, a good thing. Life's too short to spend it on conflicts or settling scores. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You have reintroduced CS1 errors: Vancouver style in that article. If you do not want Vancouver style to be used, please format the author parameter properly using alternative means. -- Dcirovic ( talk) 18:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I take no offence and won't respond. I just think some distance could be helpful. Cheers. -- Pete ( talk) 23:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Cerebellum ( talk) 15:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)It is of course your prerogative if you want to spend time engaging habituates on the founder's talk page, but you must know by now that that page is a magnet and a haven for many of the social and special purpose networkers that infest Wikipedia. Historically it has been a chamber of horrors and a graveyard for authentic content builders. Jimbo Wales has never shown the slightest interest in the obstacles faced by competent content builders on Wikipedia, and has never demonstrated he understands these problems by writing a non-trivial article himself. Instead he has a track record of ruthlessly attacking Wikipedia's more able content builders (Eric Corbett, Sitush, Dr. Blofeld, Doc James...). This applies most particularly if they challenge his own tendency to attack them. Civil queries from content builders concerning his attacks are ruthlessly put down. I am banned myself from posting on his page because I tried at one time to give the Mr Wales the opportunity to clarify the nature of severe attacks he was making on content builders. As he has said himself, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Nor may content builders freely express concerns. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 23:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
When was AGF abandoned?I tried to help, but that doesn't mean that I succeeded. I never claimed to be perfect. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo's page is sort of like the local pub. There isn't really anyplace else on en.wp where people can just show up and say what's on their mind. And just like the pub you'll hear all kinds of stuff -- bits of interesting news, people kvetching about how the world has done them wrong and it's all so unfair, drunks who swear a while and then stagger off, and the occasional nugget of true insight. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 20:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Roxy the dog: Your email to me attempting to get me to leave WP was extremely unwelcome. Please do not email me again. You are still banned from my Talk page so do not reply to this. I pinged you to alert you to my request. If any other readers know what I should do in this situation, I would appreciate the advice. DrChrissy (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Bishonen: I have to say, I take issue with your comment above "To me, though, your description ("extremely unwelcome") doesn't equate to harassment." When did we start judging whether people are being harassed on the language used in their complaint, rather than on the evidence? You have not seen that evidence. I am British and a scientist. My natural style of writing is non-emotive, concise and civil. If I had said the email was "a highly disgusting inflammatory piece of shit" would your conclusion have been different? DrChrissy (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Emailed you because I was forwarding an email to me from Christian which I thought you might be interested in as background information. Your right, I should have done it another way.-- Aspro ( talk) 21:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the DRN regarding the use of Harriet Hall's blog post in the Michael Greger article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Michael Greger. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 04:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissy, Just a minor correction to your comment (the noise levels there mean it's easy to be misled by misrepresentations of others). I don't think anyone is talking about getting rid of IBs in general—I have never come across a single editor who thinks we should get rid of them entirely and I don't think I am misrepresenting anyone who occasionally argues against IBs. To my mind (and probably most others who have a more flexible approach to the use of IBs, for some subjects an IB isn't just an improvement, it's absolutely essential. When I look at plant articles, for example, I want to see the genus he box, along with other bullets of facts that don't work well in open text. When it comes to biographies, it's slightly different. Some type of people (sportsmen, politicians, military employees, etc – anyone with a career that involves positions/ranks or statistics) need the IB to hold a summary of professional achievements or positions. When it comes to people in the arts, the IB is not useful. It contains the fluff of the individual (dates of birth, death, etc), but it's not possible to adequately put across the reason for their notability in the box (think Coward - how do you get across what the essence of him is within the restrictive confines of the box? You can't: you need text to explain the context of him and his work). Despite being misrepresented by IB Warriors in every discussion I've ever had about them, I am a huge fan of IBs, but only when they are used properly. I know that mine is not a view shared by all, but the one-size-fits-all mindset isn't something that works either for the inclusionists or the exclusionists. Still, I hope this is the last thing I ever have to write about the flaming things: I shall enjoy not discussing them during my retirement! Cheers – Gavin ( talk) 18:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Left message to talk page. Take part to discussion, ok? ※ 〶 20:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit I can't seem to find something in to support your statement "This is contrary to WP:Categorization and should be discussed at the Talk page first". Can you point out what you are specifically referring to? Thanks. Djflem ( talk) 19:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
In answer to your question: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. Didn't have time to put it in the edit summary, but it is in the block notice for the IP. Favonian ( talk) 17:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
See Arkell v. Pressdram. That is all. Guy ( Help!) 00:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thought you'd find this video kind of interesting in light of the stereotypies article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e5kj5bzRAI 'Chrome's a weaver... you can see him starting to do it a bit. (and the cut-out stall door doesn't stop him) Montanabw (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
You requested a talk...
So how is it some pages have hundreds of pictures, and just adding 2 extra ones along with links makes it too much now?
Or is their a hidden agenda why you want it removed?
Bernate ( talk) 19:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
So no reason? Please cite the rules of how much pictures are allowed that restricts what I posted? You are the one who requested this after erasing it without a valid reason, so what rules did it break, show me.
Bernate ( talk) 19:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
You mean to say it is common practice to remove things that you dont want and make it unseen so it holds your own agenda?
You still gave no restrictions that pertain to what you are talking about. Where does the rules restrict what I posted? Or are you going to just keep repeating your self and be contradicting to the wiki guidelines?
Bernate ( talk) 19:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Then why didn't you make a discussion there titled WHY I REMOVED WHAT I DID.
Because you still gave no reason why you did it.
Bernate ( talk) 20:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
No you didn't, cite where wiki restricts it. The lion page has 3x as more pictures than the asiatic lion /info/en/?search=Lion
The charade you're playing is starting to look obvious why you removed it.
Bernate ( talk) 20:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
You are starting to unravel your true purpose why you did it, because I made zero accusations, I merely pointed out you have no valid reason via restrictions from Wikipedia rules that co-sign with what you did. Why take it there at this point when YOU are the one claiming it to be against the rules, where is the rules you are talking about that RESTRICTS my contribution?
Bernate ( talk) 20:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
When someone provides ZERO-Restrictions and saying inadvertently I removed it because (IT FOLLOWS THE RULES) then yes, I am allowed to point out you not having an argument for removing it, other than 'I don't wan't anyone to see it'. The asiatic talk page? For what, it will go unanswered anyway as many post dont get replied to for months, I don't have time to wait months for something that has no restrictions other than your ulterior motives you yet to answer for, since YOU, are the person who wants to restrict it, be so kindly to present why YOU removed it. Bernate ( talk) 20:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no restrictions or wiki-laws that you can cite to that makes your reason valid.So if I was to re-edit and undo it with the reason, this page DOES NOT have enough pictures (the opposite of your reason...you would be able to find a restriction for it? No you wouldnt, hence it is not a valid reason other than your WP:NPOVD which is now becoming hilariously obvious. Bernate ( talk) 20:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Bernate ( talk) 20:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
You already know it, the same reason why you removed it, you are bias, hence you do not wish for anyone to know that a lion has been documented killing a tiger IN THE WILD, or maybe you could actually show us FOR ONCE, where Wikipedia has a law that a page can only have a certain amount of pictures, which is YOUR ONLY ARGUMENT GIVEN. A argument not supported by Wikipedia guidelines. Quite sad really that Wikipedia is subjected to your kind, people who want to hide the truth from the world for their own selfish agendas. Bernate ( talk) 20:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
No, because you did not undo what you did, kindly undo what you have done, if not, open a discussion in the talk page and give everyone several reasons why they should NOT be apart of the page. As it is about the asiatic lion, one at the ganges river and the other at the tapti river. Please give up VALID reasons that are NOT restrictions on wikipedia why you want it removed and obliterated from history like some nazi who wants to destroy history.
Than I'll be happy to concede to your arguments. Until then, you are trolling. Bernate ( talk) 20:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I am just calling things as it is because you REFUSE to give a valid reason that does not restrict the rules of wikipedia, there are 20 pictures: /info/en/?search=Asiatic_lion
there are 58 pictures on the lion page: /info/en/?search=Lion
That is THREE TIMES MORE pictures than the asiatic lion page, so you are left with three options, go to the lion page and erase all the 58 pictures because it by far exceeds the asiatic lion page which you refuse to give a valid reason for to propagate, or...undo your editing in removing it restoring the fully justifiable links that ARE RELATE TO THE PAGE...or thirdly, make a discussion and GIVE REASONS why you removed things that WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT RESTRICT. At this point you are starting to sound both hypocritical and contradicting. So you are saying that my nazi statement would thence be false? The nazi's destroyed art to make it that no one knows the historical truth of its substance, exactly what you are doing. I showed the WP:NPOVD because it is made to dispute the neutrality, in other words show that you are bias, since you haven't given any restrictions, thats pretty much what you are doing, how am I wrong? Bernate ( talk) 21:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Only you are refusing to do this, I bet as soon as you do or I do make a discussion there you will flop on your reasons, in that case, challenge excepted, I will make a page specifically titled why does Drchrissy refuse to except valid sources and contradict the guidelines and rules of wikipedia.
Bernate ( talk) 21:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Whats the matter, can't come up with a good argument to something you intended to troll on? It is now created, I await your such intelligent and valid points.
Bernate ( talk) 21:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for proving me right, you just didnt want it on because you are bias...so sad its almost pathetic. Bernate ( talk) 21:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
With another yet pathetic and contradicting answer. Bernate ( talk) 22:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
lol wow, so you were just waiting for the three law rule to hide the info even further? Man you are desperate and pathetic. It must really bother you that a lion killed a tiger in the wild, and you not being able to find anything of vice versa. Some people call that butt hurt. Bernate ( talk) 22:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Oshwah I'M STILL WAITING FOR THE RESTRICTION....where is my contribution restricted by Wikipedia? WHERE!!! Bernate ( talk) 22:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Harassing? shes VANDALIZING my contribution with FALSELY stating things that have NO RESTRICTIONS, SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! THIS IS VANDALISM! Bernate ( talk) 22:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
yeah, you commend people for vandalism, right on, puh....I wont comment here again, I see through her sick joke of a bias ulterior agenda. No need to further prove that point. Get her way, I don't care, hang on to bias and propagated narratives. Its sickening to know...but the truth will always avail. I wont post here again, so get in your last word to make your self feel better Bernate ( talk) 23:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
DrChrissy, I highly commend you for your patience and your civility despite the opposite being thrown at you today. Completely ignoring the harassment and the accusations being tossed at you, and keeping the topic at-hand towards policy and the content in question is a very rare skill that even many of our best contributors fall short with. You've probably seen my talk page many times; it gets trashed, vandalized, and pooped on with outing and accusations all the time. If you're like me, that stuff makes you smirk or even laugh at the most, and it doesn't get to you at all - because, really, it's all just silly anyways. Please know that this skill you possess is a diamond in a great pile of sand, that it's what we need on this project, and that it absolutely does not go unnoticed - at least by me, it doesn't :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC) |
Hello, DrChrissy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissie, trying to understand your comments on my "Stotting" edits and what's required to present the material correctly. Thanks for any help. Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookj651 ( talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I saw that sub-thread at ANI where the other editor made personal attacks against you, and I hatted it. Sorry that that happened to you. The other editor's conduct was atrocious. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
Merry Christmas |
Hoping you stay warm and have lots of good times and good food this holiday season! White Arabian Filly Neigh |
![]() |
Wishing you a
Charlie Russell Christmas, DrChrissy! |
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw (talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissy, at the direction of the Arbitration Committee, an arbitration amendment request that you were listed as a party to has been closed and archived here. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for all of your work on wp. Do you know about the Science article "Great apes anticipate that other individuals will act according to false beliefs" Science 07 Oct 2016: Vol. 354, Issue 6308, pp. 110-114 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf8110
I think that should be discussed on the ToM page. Do you agree? If so, can/will/do you want to do it? If not, would you encourage me to do it?
I'm not an expert in the subject. I was a geneticist. Dennis Drdfp ( talk) 02:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
In case you don't get the notification.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 23:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC))
*@ DrChrissy: A draft of a long set of thoughts. I am deliberately avoiding the word harangue.:O)( Littleolive oil ( talk) 23:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC))
(my finest hour) I'm sorry, I didn't know that I used an inappropriate source. Thanks for your correction. Best Regards,
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
In addition, you are warned that repeating this conduct may lead to additional sanctions such as an an interaction ban. Sandstein 08:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: I have sent you an email. DrChrissy (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
We have a policy ( WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED) that it is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them. Some of you reading this may be aware that I recently raised a case at AE in this regard and I have ended up being blocked for mentioning my topic ban. So what was I supposed to do? Make a vague accusation that an unnamed editor mentioned my non-stated Topic ban over at an unspecified article? Of course I would have been asked for more details. Providing more details is in itself highly problematic as I have been told that simply linking/discussing someone discussing my topic ban is a violation of my topic ban. So, if I believe an editor is taking advantage of my topic ban, how and where do I raise this issue? - or perhaps this policy is not worth the paper/screen it is written on and needs deleting thereby making way for the ensuing let's have a free-for-all on discussing each others topic bans. DrChrissy (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: pinging to be polite - I am not asking for a reply but of course you may do so if you wish. I am getting some really mixed messages here. In this thread [33], it is indicated to me that AE is exactly the venue I should have raised my concerns which have led to my block and that WP:BANEX allows the naming of others in an interaction ban and topic bans. However, others are telling me it was completely the wrong venue and I was not allowed to name my topic ban. Can anyone explain? DrChrissy (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone like to comment on whether I can specify on my user page that I have been topic banned and state the subject of that topic ban and the ARBCOM proceedings that led to that sanction? DrChrissy (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your e-mail, which I reproduce below for the sake of transparency:
Although you did not ask to be unblocked, blocks and other sanctions on Wikipedia are intended to be preventative, not punitive. That is, they should last only as long as they are (likely) needed to prevent the reoccurrence of the conduct for which they were imposed. Your e-mail leaves me reasonably confident that the block is no longer needed. It is accordingly lifted. Regards, Sandstein 20:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed it is good news - Thank you @ Sandstein:. DrChrissy (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Slatersteven (
talk)
18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Dan Koehl. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Lychee and Dog Meat Festival, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to
include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Dan Koehl (
talk)
17:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I was clearly wrong about Wikipedia spelling policy. Because the enormous majority of the articles seem to use US spelling, I made the assumption that it was the standard.
In fact, as was pointed out to me, there is no standard. I think that's a mistake, but I'm a remarkably minor editor and don't feel like making an issue of it.
Thank you. IAmNitpicking ( talk) 13:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Don't worry too much about this. I think anyone from the UK or the US has felt like this at some time. I edit mainly in the area of animal behaviour and I still dislike having to write "behavior" in some articles - but we learn to live with it. Happy editing. DrChrissy (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I just saw your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Objectionable edit summary. I think that you and Nyttend should come and see where I live for a few days. We have had one of the coldest January/February in over 15 years. We usually get one or two -40 C/F days each year but this year we have had days on end of temperatures below -40 C/F and the coldest this year was −42 °C (−44 °F). We used to get this type of weather years ago but we aren't used to it any more. It's currently warmed up to −31 °C (−24 °F) but as per usual with the warmer temperatures comes the blizzard. It's not to bad yet, only around 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) but it is supposed to go up to 70 kn (130 km/h; 81 mph) later. Enjoy your lovely warm spring weather which I see is about 9 °C (48 °F). Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Any particular part of my proposed revision that you want me to source? Most of what I wrote is based on my own life experience. As I am both a health and environmentally-conscious person, I have many good reasons for wanting to add venison to my diet. It has a much higher nutritional value than most commercial meat, and I see it has more natural and ethically sound. Further research has given me reason to think that both my family and I could benefit from the lean protein found in the meat muscle of wild deer who have spent their lives in nature on a diet of grass and wild plants. Yet my parents can't fathom the thought of my pointing and firing a gun to take the life of such a beautiful animal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.60.41.24 ( talk) 02:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
link to policy or I'm reverting. Asmrulz ( talk) 00:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#DrChrissy. Notification of an AE request I am required to give you.
NeilN
talk to me
17:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. —
Coffee //
have a cup //
beans //
19:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia. This is as a result of the consensus reached here:
[37]. You've been given numerous chances by the community, which have led to multiple blocks, and multiple topic bans. Additionally you have a current IBAN with another user, and there is clear evidence you have used AN/I to try to pile on in a debate, or try to get those you are in disagreement blocked or disciplined.
This MUST stop now. You're deliberately skirting the line of your restrictions (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Correct place to report interaction ban violation for a recent example where you tried to have someone again disciplined, without evidence to the contrary.).
The community is clear on this: Any future behavior such as this, showing up on AN or AN/I just to stir up trouble, or snipe at editors you have disagreed with, or other general bad-faith, disruptive behavior will result in a final indefinite block for your account.
This is your last chance, please make the most of it and let these things go. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 15:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I just saw your comment at the Village Pump, and realized that you are back. Welcome! I really do hope that you will be around for the long-term. And I hope that you accept that you have to take seriously the feedback you got a month ago, in order for that to happen. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Bravery Barnstar. | |
For standing up for and defending the ground of what is known and understood. Aspro ( talk) 16:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC) |
@ Aspro: Thanks very much for the barnstar - much appreciated. Several days ago I sent you an email thanking you, but I'm not sure how often you check your email. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey there, re: this, I think you meant to revert the addition of "bloodless", but instead your reversion re-added the "Portuguese" thing that I was removing, which I don't think was your intention. However, after I followed the link back to the Flickr source, the photographer describes it as Portuguese style (which wasn't clear from the Wikipedia upload data) but also, it does appear to be bloodless. The spears are Velcro-tipped and the bull is wearing a Velcro hump vest (for lack of better phrase...) Perhaps a better image from the photostream would be better. Regards, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 02:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
To use the first part of the article content for the glossary entry with its source, and in keeping with the depth of sourcing I've been using there, I've tracked down the detail for The One Show citation you used, which I thought you might want to use in the Whiffling article:
Ideally, I would want to add the |minutes= parameter. Do you possibly have this recorded and could find out? Cheers-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk)
Ok, so there's a chicken in the US referred to as the " Easter Egger" which is supposed to lay a blue-green colored egg. My daughter has one such hen but the eggs she laysthe hen, not my daughter, although she's had egg on her face from time to time like her Mom are not blue-green rather they are white with a grayish tint. Is there something she should be feeding the hen that corrects whatever is wrong with the color? For example, we add things to the soil to make a flower a certain color (blue or pink), and I was wondering if the same applied to hens laying eggs. Is it a PH balance issue, or lack of iron, or something similar which is causing her to lay grayish eggs? Does it have something to do with the rooster? Should the rooster also be an Easter Egger? Atsme 📞 📧 23:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Not that a rooster is necessary.23:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, it is great running into you again. I thought that if a wikilink was included in a statement, and that if the references were in the article that was linked, this would be considered an appropriate way to reference. I typically include refs for all my content. I have about 15refs to go along with the content I inserted. I will try to pick out the best.
Hi DrChrissy! Did you intend this edit? It appears out of place. -- ToE 16:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
TTT
test
Hi DrChrissy, just wanted to say thanks for your participation at the ref desks! A quick glance here shows you are also very active at improving WP mainspace, so thanks for that too. I keep meaning to do more for articles, but I usually only have the attention span to make minor grammar edits, and deal with higher level stuff as one-offs at the ref desk :) SemanticMantis ( talk) 00:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Here in the US we welcome every opportunity for a holiday!! If it were left up to our school children, they would transpose the number of school days with the number of holidays. DrChrissy, I sympathize with what you're going through with the waves battering against your shoreline. It's erosive, even against solid rock. Sometimes the behavior I've witnessed at the drama boards reminds me a little of the book, "Cannibalism, Ecology and Evolution Among Diverse Taxa" published by the Oxford University Press. Perhaps it has something to do with the book's description per the NYT "that when animals eat their own species they are not just looking for another meal but also seeking to destroy competitors", [1]. Granted, it's a rather extreme hyperbole, so I will AGF by saying that I can't imagine any editor who doesn't want to edit unencumbered or be shackled by mass confusion. I've also heard that when a storm moves inland, it dissipates so the best thing to do is just batten down the hatches and ride it out. Can you believe the holidays are upon us? Wow. Atsme 📞 📧 18:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy, I just want to add that I can very much empathize with how stressful that AN discussion must be for you, and I want to offer you my sincere hopes that you can be of good cheer nonetheless. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmm...I think DrChrissy's proposal has merit and might just fit the project if presented properly to the Foundation via the IdeaLab, [2]. What could it hurt if he/we at least presented his idea for consideration? Atsme 📞 📧 22:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy, you found a page that I completely forgot about - User talk:Atsme/Banners. In fact, I created User:Atsme/Banners because I couldn't find the other one! 👀 Now I know where it is and will figure out some way to merge the two. Thank you! Atsme 📞 📧 16:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissy, I just wanted you to know that I'm not trying to actually remove that passage on the FAWC data. I just can't figure out what it's trying to say. As it stands, it's looks nonsequitur, is unclear, and looks like original analysis. I left (will leave) some details of what I mean on the talk page. DrAlso ( talk) 20:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissy, On the DT talk page I added a detailed analysis of the logic errors, innuendo, etc. in the first paragraph of the "Welfare Concerns" section. Would you like a crack at addressing it? DrAlso ( talk) 08:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
See the link when you get a chance. It's one of the reasons I was reluctant in using the photo. [3] I'll do some further checking on Commons. Thanks in advance... Atsme 📞 📧 20:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | |
Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!! | |
What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water, | |
...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉 | |
Pure pun-ishment. [4] |
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.
2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.
3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.
7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.
11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
Sorry to be so blunt - but Dennis made it clear that he wanted a break from all of this. Maybe look somewhere else? — Ched : ? 01:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I just went through all of JzG's edits at the Seralini affair page, and there actually is no violation of 1RR, although it came close. Please don't comment on it any further, because that page is part of your topic ban, and any further comment about it is going to get you blocked. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Its likely that the comment on JzG's section violates the GMO topic ban you are under. You might want to strike/remove it. AlbinoFerret 18:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
And you definitely want to strike this [5]. That in no way, shape or form falls under the exemptions in BANEX. You're not asking for clarification or appealing the ban in the proper venue. Capeo ( talk) 16:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I have opened a section on you at WP:AE regarding your recent violation of your topic ban. Please comment there. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
|
I wish you and your family Seasons Greetings and a very Happy New Year
Gandydancer (
talk)
18:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄 |
Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw (talk) |
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a note to let you know that your recent ARCA request has been
archived.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Mdann52 (
talk)
17:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo, I have posted below my appeal for a request to ArbCom to amend a decision of theirs. This has now been archived. As I indicated on your talk page, I believe this is a matter of principle in the way that Wikipedia operates, rather than just a single decision abut a single editor's behaviour. I have been topic banned from an area in which I have never edited. Despite my asking for evidence of such editing, none has been produced by any user or arbitrator. I feel it is a very dangerous precedent for ArbCom to ban editors from places they have not even edited, let alone disrupted.
[8] [9] [10] [11] [12]) but these were all unrelated to GM-plants.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Genetically_modified_organisms_2. Guy ( Help!) 00:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
LesVegas (
talk)
15:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Some very good comments here and here. SageRad ( talk) 19:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
...to let you know about the comment I left on the talk page of Emotion in animals. Best Regards, Bfpage | leave a message 01:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Floquenbeam (
talk)
20:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Useful links:
-- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, this message is inform you that a motion pertaining to you has been proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 03:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@ SageRad: I agree entirely with you regarding the broadening of topic bans. I too have just had my topic ban considerably extended. here This has been without any evidence provided at any stage of the case and its fall-out that my editing was problematic in this broadened area. How can this process of substantially extending topic bans simply ignore the process which which has been set up to be fair and to be seen to be fair (although this is arguable in itself). There are also 2 other aspects to consider. One is the change in Arbcom members during these topic ban broadenings. This is like changing the judges halfway through a case - surely in such a complex case a re-trial would be expected. The second aspect is a psychological one. New members of ArbCom are extremely unlikely in their first dealing to argue or vote against a previous ArbCom finding. Moreover, they would be very keen to prove themselves as being very decisive and keen to comment/vote - this can be seen in some of the comments put next to votes (a practice I believe is totally unnecessary and very often inflammatory.
But I really just wanted to say one thing, having been familiar with you for a few years now: please stop digging. You're in a hole, stop digging. There is a way out of the hole, but this is not it. You can blame ArbCom all you want, but ArbCom does its work based on what evidence is presented. Getting in good graces with ArbCom is not really where it's at since ArbCom also responds to what the community has to say: it's community members you have to win for your case. You won't win Jytdog, it seems to me, but that latest AE case easily sways a more neutral observer away from your case. All the best, Drmies ( talk) 02:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@ User:Drmies, thank you for your comments.DrChrissy (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy's topic ban which currently states that "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."
For the Arbitration Committee Amortias ( T)( C) 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@ I am One of Many: Thank you for your comment here. [16] It is always nice to receive compliments for the quality of one's content editing. Much appreciated.DrChrissy (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@ SageRad: Hi Sage, you might be interested in this thread [17] which started today. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grimace scale (animals), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Post hoc and CBA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit on the noticeboard. I've been farming most of my life, and I've discovered that while some of the old wives' tales are nonsense, some are true. I don't know if there are any actual scientific studies on hair whorls, but I always heard that the location of the whorl on the head had to do with the formation of the animal's brain. (And where I live, the superstition is that a whorl in the middle of the forehead means a good horse, a whorl above the eyes means a high-strung horse, and a whorl far down on the face means a stupid one.) But temperaments have been selectively bred for, as anybody who's ever had animals knows ( Great Pyrenees can be trusted with baby animals because they have been bred for guard work-- Thoroughbreds are high-strung because they are bred to have a great drive to run, etc.) Some of it you have to learn through experience and can't get from reading stuff on the internet. And some theories sound good in print but do not work in reality. White Arabian Filly ( Neigh) 23:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm unsure whether my posting here might be unwelcome, but I hope that it's OK. I just saw what you said at another page about your problems with diabetes and the risk that you might have to have amputations, and very truly, my heart went out to you. I feel very sad that you are going through such difficulties, and I hope that you will have a good recovery. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Trypto. Thanks for your obviously sincere and genuine concern. Diabetes is a terrible disease for many reasons. I would tell you more, however, I believe there are others out there who might actually use that against me as a violation of my topic ban. Yes, I actually believe that - what a sad state of affairs. Thanks again for your concern.DrChrissy (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
People don't often express appreciation for being prompted to re-read something. Having seen more of your comments, I believe you were being absolutely sincere. I'm both embarrassed and relieved to learn my interpretation was not correct, and I sincerely apologize for my misunderstanding. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 21:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Your
comment at RSN raised an interesting point: a
search in The Blind Watchmaker brings up no examples of "intelligent design", but from my own copy Dawkins in his preface refers to "complex design", one of many terms for the
teleological argument, on pages 4–6 he discusses
William Paley's Natural Theology version of that argument.
Our
intelligent design article briefly mentions theological predecessors of the term, and in
a footnote gives example of 19th century use of the phrase when discussing God's works and "intelligent direction".
On the first amendment's influence,
Timeline of intelligent design outlines the series of court cases which led to "scientific creationism" being rebranded as
creation science. After teaching that in public school science classrooms was ruled unconstitutional by
Edwards v. Aguillard, the term intelligent design
was substituted, with the claim that this was a NASA phrase being used for a new science. Hope you find these clarifications helpful. . .
dave souza,
talk
10:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC).Re: " I think we are now all warned"; no, that doesn't count, but now you're warned. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC).
I saw that you had reverted my last edit of the above page, also saying i had deleted a load of posts on the talk page. I was glad to hear the last point, because I didn't think I had - I was editing only the article itself. I ddi delete some code which might have had that effect on the talk page. If so, I regret that as I believe previous discussions on talk pages should only ever be edited by the person who made them, or with their permission. Perhaps you can tell me or point me to info which will prevent me doing this again? As a separate issue I think my reversion to exclude commodity status was correct, as the extensive discussion is going round in circles with no end in sight. This to me shows it is a dubious phrase to use in this context. Any comments welcome, thanks in advance. TonyClarke ( talk) 11:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there,
Leaving this message for you as I think this is something in your wheelhouse. I stumbled across the article for bile bear tonight and was unpleasantly surprised to find that, first off and most glaringly, the lead mentions nothing at all about animal welfare, [lack of] medicinal efficacy, and other sub-topics that would, I imagine, constitute a good portion of decent sources. It also had several odd bits of fluff (for example, the section ostensibly on farmed bear statistics started with an unsourced paragraph about an initiative to release some bears) and a whole lot of unsourced or poorly sourced content. I removed some things and tagged it, but it's late and I don't see myself having time to do any serious review of this in the near future. My hope is that it's something you may want to take a look at. I may also post to WikiProject Animal Welfare, although I don't know how active that WikiProject is...
Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
welcome on Talk:Chicken#Claim_of_holocene_domestication_... Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
If you want to revert back you will need to undo another edit. You just removed my notice that I fixed the table. To revert the table back you will need to undo this . -- GB fan 19:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The consensus is that you don't have a leg to stand on. If you actually took the time to read what folks have been telling you, you'd see that you have little to no chance of getting what you want, and the longer it dragged on, the more likely you would have received a block. I did you a favor. Now don't bother me about this again. Drop the stick. -- Tarage ( talk) 21:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear DrChrissy, is this your twilight time on Wikipedia? It pisses me off. I've enjoyed collaborating with you on some significant articles on Wikipedia where you and I, and only you and I, maintain standards. If you are going to persist in that most quixotic activity on Wikipedia – questing for justice, rationality, decency... whatever... on such unlikely venues as odious drama boards and surreal "arbcom deliberation" pages, then the outcome is simple. They will do what they always do and run a sword through you (siteban you). It sounds like you are running your health down also. If I could command and control you, I would direct you stop dead in the water right now, radically reassess and learn buddhist meditation. But since I can't control you, should I prepare a requiem for you? -- Epipelagic ( talk) 06:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
That's news to me. I've been doing it for over two years, I often see others do it, and yours is the first hint that it's "frowned upon". It's useful information about the nature of my edit. Can you say why it's frowned upon? ― Mandruss ☎ 17:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I saw that you reverted my edit in Cheetah with good faith. Thanks for your vigilance. Actually I am in the course of improving the article, and trying as much as possible to keep the article ready for readers any moment. Not all can be worked out in my sandbox. I assure you that I will try to make it look better even whilst I am working on it. Presently I am re-adding info from the old revision, but that will be tomorrow, late here. Thanks again. Sainsf <^> Talk all words 18:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
IP addresses are not "registered". IPv6 addresses are substantially more dynamic than IPv4 addresses. You have to look at subnet masks, usually at least the /64. Guy ( Help!) 22:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@ JzG: Just so we can be crystal clear on this, you are now banned from my Talk page.DrChrissy (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits, but I would like to know what exactly you did to the introduction of "Ecology and behaviour", where they discuss territories. I am on vacation from this but I managed to drop by and add some stuff. You see, I tried to keep as much as I could of the original material, it was good but unsourced. I had to remove a few points but I have a lot of literature to look in, so if it were true I could re-add it. Presently the section shows a lot of redundancy as both the previous material as well as my edits are there. The subheadings look wrongly placed, too. Should I contact editors at the article talk page? But whom should I contact? And the issue as far as I can see is the expansion; I am taking care not to delete anything unduly (don't know what happened to "Vocalizations", it was deleted by mistake I am afraid). I will resume editing when we reach a consensus and, of course, if I am free. I love this article, and wish to take this to FA status through collaboration if others wish to help here. If I have done something wrong, please tell me and I will rectify my error. Thank you. Sainsf <^> Talk all words 12:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It feels a little odd for me to be giving advice to someone who is probably a better and more experienced writer than I am, but one of the aspects I have the most experience with by now is revising WP articles. The most difficult thing to do is in revising is to deal with duplication; either when one finds existing duplication or when one feels it necessary to put new material what would duplicate material that is already less well stated in another place in an article. When people are trying to make a case for something, they often fall into the pattern of saying some of the key points several times in several places. I know I tend to do that when I am deliberately advocating for something, and I assume I do it also when I fell about something strongly even if I do not at the time recognize it. I think some of it is that one cares very much and wants to make sure one has said it, and also that one takes what will have an emotional impact and -- in addition to putting it wherever it really logically belongs-- one puts it both in the beginning to set the expectations, and then again at the end to leave the intended impression.
Further, when people are deliberately or unconsciously advocating, They also tend to bring in fully sufficient background to make sure the reader is seeing the actual subject in what they think is the proper overall context. This may be necessary in stand-alone writing, but it isn't in a collected work like this, where the related information is given by linking. A further technique that is easy to do in works like this is to use illustrations, and especially multiple similar illustrations, which will leave more of an emotional than an informative purpose. The art of doing conceal advocacy consists doing these things without making the advocacy obvious by actually stating what the reader is intended to conclude. I see all three of these in the article on Pain in crustaceans --I turned to that one of your examples first, because it is also a topic where I have myself strong feelings that are the same as yours-- and I looked at Bile Bear for similar reasons. I have no idea if they were deliberate or unconscious. I'm not going to deal further with this or the other articles; I generally avoid working on articles where I have strong feelings just as I avoid persistently working on any article where I encounter strong opposition. I'm not really bother by encountering this sort of writing when I oppose the implied or explicit viewpoint--I expect it from my ideological opponents. I'm much more concerned with it when I actually agree. I feel I owe it to you to expand on my comment at ANI, where I wanted to avoid detail. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I did not add the section itself i just corrected an obvious error!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apfan ( talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, DrChrissy - the reason Alligator gar specifically stated "anecdotal reports" and anecdotal evidence in scientific reports is because that's exactly what they are - anecdotal, no scientific proof, word of mouth, supposition - in other words, there are no "official reports" and no scientific evidence to confirm or deny the claim; therefore, it's still considered "anecdotal". We cannot say anything in WP voice that is not official or verifiable, especially when the cited sources use the words claim, or "it has been reported", or refer to it as "anecdotal evidence". I know you were trying to be helpful but I don't think it's accurate to say in WP voice that they can grow to be 10 ft. The verifiable facts tell us that they get heavier not longer after they reach a certain size (under 10 ft.) - refer to the official records which verify the largest alligator gar ever caught and recorded was about 8-1/2 ft. long. Following are some official verifiable reports that support what I'm saying is accurate about how their weight increases rather than their length, [22], [23], [24]. I went ahead and put the information back the way it was when it passed the GA review. Thanks for giving me another opportunity to research and check for verifiable information that would justify the removal of anecdotal. I simply don't believe we're there, yet. Atsme 📞 📧 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I do hope your topic ban gets lifted - it most certainly does look as if it will happen. Regards, -- Ches (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi friend! I am sorry if I am being impatient, but it looks like it is only you, me and Mcelite who are discussing the changes made to the article. I feel you are busy in other things at the moment, and even Mcelite is not available. As our discussions are progressing slowly, I can not work on the article. I assure you that I will make changes carefully and according to the standards followed in Tiger and Lion. Please do not revert the changes made by me before seeking an explanation from me; I carefully add appropriate info along with credible sources. Details like the arrangement of sections, renaming them can be taken care of at the Good Article review stage, we need not worry about this too much now. I have experience having worked on several articles in the past. Please allow me to continue with the article. Thanks. Sainsf <^> Talk all words 18:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
About the revert, I could not get why you reverted it. You see, I am working on the full text of the section and the subsections are really troublesome in the meantime. Please understand. I believe the Ecology section will be done by tomorrow. Please don't revert Speed as well! Sainsf <^> Talk all words 19:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zoopharmacognosy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Woolly bear. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up that article, and apologies if I edit-conflicted with you at some point. If you get fed up with it, ping me and I can finish up. Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 18:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I have completed work on most of the article, except the lead, status and threats, and conservation sections. You may like to check the improvements. I will complete my work on the article in the next few weeks and nominate this at the GAN. Sainsf <^> Feel at home 13:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Food and drink prohibitions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balut. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia categorisation system is hierarchical. If an article is in the category "Animals in China" it should not also be in the category "Animals". because "Animals in China" is included in the category "Animals". Otherwise the top categories become unmanageably big. The point of categories is to help users find articles they might not know exist. They need to be fairly small, ideally to fit on a page, so they can easily be scanned. I suggest you read WP:SUBCAT. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
please come to my talk page to make it full
Hey Dr. Chrissy,
Just wanted to thank you for resolving the dispute over the usage of "nuclear family" with regards to the Wikipage on the coyote. I have from time to time made revisions on Wikipedia, many times to only see those revisions get changed. I thought in this particular case that my logic was sound, why Massone enjoys the use of this term in this instance baffles me, especially when one looks at the Wikipage on nuclear family!!
Can coyotes be married?!! LOL.
Sincerely, AA Pilot
I see you keep an eye on the cheetah article. A user, Sainsf, made a large number of edits a few weeks back, and I am less than impressed with them. I don't think the prose is particularly great, but the real gripe is that his modifications have completed mangled some of the sourcing and introduced outdated sources with regards to top speed and the like. Would you back me up if I reverted everything he has done and re-added it more carefully? I'm sure some of it must be useful. -- BowlAndSpoon ( talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
A lot of vandalism by IPs has been going on here, I and others are tired of reverting these edits. I see you are an administrator, could you guide me on what can be done here? Thanks, Sainsf <^> Feel at home 08:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#DrChrissy_.28yet_again.29
I assume you are familiar with the drill.
jps ( talk) 18:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
You are being baited as was I. Just walk away and let an admin deal with it. Once you make your points attempting to rebut every allegation that is created will only frustrate you and create a wall of text no admin will wade through. Let the major points on both sides be clear and clearly seen; let the rest fall back into the shadows where they belong.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC))
"Wolves kill dogs wherever the two canids occur." Just because one authority says this, that does not make it a generalization across the English-speaking Wikipedia. Other writers disagree. Regards, William Harris • talk • 20:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I cannot see your arguments for deleting the Ant section on Mirror Test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.244.180 ( talk) 03:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dr Chrissy, thank you for helping improve the animal welfare page in the UK. I personally don't know a great deal about specific UK animal welfare issues (not from the UK), only from what I've picked up from reading online UK papers. I'm sure some local UK editors will build up the page.
The animal welfare proposals section has just one source at the moment (the Ulster Unionist party), which is only because I happened upon that information while I was researching online articles to do with animal cruelty sentencing laws around the UK - and I thought "aha", a "proposals" section would be a good growth section to get people thinking about the possibilities regarding animal welfare. Anticla rutila ( talk) 06:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
This reminded me of what happened here a few weeks ago! If you haven't seen it yet, hope you enjoy. :-) -- Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I've appended some additional comments. Just a minor mix-up that needs fixing, and it should be ready to go. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pain in crustaceans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaerobic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissy,
Just had a quick question regarding your revision of the content added yesterday to the Human Penis page by @ 123hs:. Was the revision due to our use of American English or was it also the content we had added/edited? Just wanted to see if it would be possible to put the content additions back in if we make sure we use the American English or whether there was a problem with the content?
Thank you in advance! JS.Chester ( talk) 10:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry DrChrissy, but following on from the Quackery discussion below, at
WP:RESTRICT your Tban is logged as "from human health and medicine, and WP:MEDRS related discussions, broadly construed." It seems like your recent involvement at the article mentioned in this section would very easily be seen as falling under this, probably best to disengage there as well. Thanks...
Zad
68
16:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
No problem, let's get some clarity before it becomes an issue, I have opened at thread at ANI
here.
Zad
68
18:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Aren't you topic-banned wrt human health? Alexbrn ( talk) 16:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your addition to this article. Actually, the "borrowed" material may suggest a warning function but does not provide proof of it. The existing text carefully steers a course through the rather thin evidence; the new material basically doubles the length of the section without adding very much in the way of evidence. I'd be minded to cut it, unless you know something about it that I don't, i.e. a whole lot more sources describing experimental observations! Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Theory of mind in animals at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
BlueMoonset (
talk)
06:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, DrChrissy. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I saw that you have indicated on your user page your retirement from editing, and I was saddened to see that. I know that you have sometimes not seen eye to eye with me on some issues, but I hope that you will accept my saying this as being said very sincerely. Yes, dealing with people on Wikipedia can be quite trying. And it can be a very positive move to just take a good long break and clear one's mind. But I sincerely do hope that you will eventually come back, at some time when it feels right for you. My best wishes, -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Tryptofish:@ Epipelagic: Hi Both. Thank you for these kind comments. After a shortish break, I now feel the desire to come out of retirement. I am still very unhappy about the CCI request hanging over my head, especially because it looks like things move very slowly over there, but I guess I will have to live with that for the moment. Thanks both for your encouragement to return - it means a lot to me. @Epi, I remember you asking an editor (who shall remain nameless) whether they used software for monitoring close paraphrasing. Do you know if/where this is available so I can scan my own work? I have used on-line plaigerism checkers in the past, but these are not sensitive to paraphrasing. (I had the bad experience once of doing some paid web writing for a veterinary firm. I wanted to say "The main symptoms of the disease are X, Y and Z". The firm refused to pay me, saying the article was not totally original because other sites had previously published all possible combinations and permutations of X, Y and Z!) DrChrissy (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
{{Ping|Epipelagic}}
gives @
Epipelagic:. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
21:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help at the teahouse, so here is a big smiley for you!
East Anglian Regional (
talk)
17:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Theory of mind in animals at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
BlueMoonset (
talk)
16:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Knew there had to be a scientific explanation of why modern cat food causes cats to over-eat and develop premature health problems. What I didn’t know is how much pet food manufactures have been beguiling veterinarians. So, although I don't claim to have squared the circle on this, the following two links go to sites that seem to match my experiences almost exactly. feline-nutrition and the misguided pointlessness of Therapeutic Diets. So may your cat live long, prosper and regain her dress size 8 figure again.-- Aspro ( talk) 19:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Theory of mind in horses? http://www.thehorse.com/articles/37681/study-confirms-horses-talk-to-human-handlers Montanabw (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissy. Can I politely request that you not post there again? I don't think it will help anybody if you continue. Thanks for your cooperation. -- John ( talk) 19:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions. It seems that you may have added
public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia
guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at
Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an
attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk)
19:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
This action, which I am sure was well-intentioned, seems to have failed to achieve anything except to cause great drama and bring out some strong opinions that you should be restricted from continuing to post complaints. While I do not think there is a consensus there for any action against you (or User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc), I think the courteous thing to do now would be to withdraw the complaint, and try to avoid User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc for a while. If you see anything egregious from them, you can always ping me or another admin. I would also like you to commit to a voluntary absence from the complaints procedure for a while. Edits like this one are greatly appreciated and you should make more of them. This is not a formal admin warning, but a friendly suggestion as to how I think the matter should best be progressed now. -- John ( talk) 22:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Please don't ever cast aspersions about my motives for having an opinion again, as you did yesterday at ANI.
This isn't a request for discussion, and I don't want, nor will I entertain one, it's a strong request that you not repeat that behaviour.
You are fortunate I don't care enough to pursue that. I'll assume you were under pressure and lashed out, as is your wont.
Good day. Begoon talk 14:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, DrChrissy. Reading the AN thread that you started recently, asking for sanctions against jps, [26] I had a thought. You'll recollect a boomerang request was started but didn't go anywhere, reasonably enough, as you had been told by two admins that such a request would be OK on AN. But it made me reflect. When you started editing in 2011, you only had a tiny percentage of edits to Wikipedia space: less than 1%, as against 90% to article space. [27] Clearly you came here for the purpose of adding high-quality content, not for arguing. Your proportion of edits to WP space remained very modest up to 2014. But since then you seem to have shifted more and more towards arguing on the noticeboards. 10% of your edits were to WP space in 2015, and 18% in 2016. Less than 50% were to article space in both 2015 and 2016. It seems a pity. Your interest is in animals and animal behaviour, and I'm impressed by the list of articles (created or developed) on your userpage. Isn't that would you should be doing here? I understand that some strong feelings have drawn you more and more to the noticeboards. But it isn't actually any fun, is it? It can't be any fun at all when respected users say things like "DrChrissy is incapable of resisting an opportunity to waste community time". [28] How about getting back to your original focus on the birds and the other animals, perhaps by means a self-ban for three months or whatever from WP space? I self-banned myself from ANI in September 2015, [29] and enjoyed it so much I extended it for another three months when it was over. I hope you try it. Regards, Bishonen | talk 20:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC).
I hesitated what to say here, but I feel that I want to follow up. It would be a pity if this talk thread were to end on a note of nasty tricks and escalation. I do hope that this discussion ends up focusing on the positive, not the negative. I think that Bishonen's opening message was a good one, and I hope that it's where the focus will be. Like Montanabw and Epipelagic, I have enjoyed editing content with DrChrissy. That's a positive thing, a good thing. Life's too short to spend it on conflicts or settling scores. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You have reintroduced CS1 errors: Vancouver style in that article. If you do not want Vancouver style to be used, please format the author parameter properly using alternative means. -- Dcirovic ( talk) 18:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I take no offence and won't respond. I just think some distance could be helpful. Cheers. -- Pete ( talk) 23:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Cerebellum ( talk) 15:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)It is of course your prerogative if you want to spend time engaging habituates on the founder's talk page, but you must know by now that that page is a magnet and a haven for many of the social and special purpose networkers that infest Wikipedia. Historically it has been a chamber of horrors and a graveyard for authentic content builders. Jimbo Wales has never shown the slightest interest in the obstacles faced by competent content builders on Wikipedia, and has never demonstrated he understands these problems by writing a non-trivial article himself. Instead he has a track record of ruthlessly attacking Wikipedia's more able content builders (Eric Corbett, Sitush, Dr. Blofeld, Doc James...). This applies most particularly if they challenge his own tendency to attack them. Civil queries from content builders concerning his attacks are ruthlessly put down. I am banned myself from posting on his page because I tried at one time to give the Mr Wales the opportunity to clarify the nature of severe attacks he was making on content builders. As he has said himself, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Nor may content builders freely express concerns. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 23:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
When was AGF abandoned?I tried to help, but that doesn't mean that I succeeded. I never claimed to be perfect. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Jimbo's page is sort of like the local pub. There isn't really anyplace else on en.wp where people can just show up and say what's on their mind. And just like the pub you'll hear all kinds of stuff -- bits of interesting news, people kvetching about how the world has done them wrong and it's all so unfair, drunks who swear a while and then stagger off, and the occasional nugget of true insight. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 20:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Roxy the dog: Your email to me attempting to get me to leave WP was extremely unwelcome. Please do not email me again. You are still banned from my Talk page so do not reply to this. I pinged you to alert you to my request. If any other readers know what I should do in this situation, I would appreciate the advice. DrChrissy (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Bishonen: I have to say, I take issue with your comment above "To me, though, your description ("extremely unwelcome") doesn't equate to harassment." When did we start judging whether people are being harassed on the language used in their complaint, rather than on the evidence? You have not seen that evidence. I am British and a scientist. My natural style of writing is non-emotive, concise and civil. If I had said the email was "a highly disgusting inflammatory piece of shit" would your conclusion have been different? DrChrissy (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Emailed you because I was forwarding an email to me from Christian which I thought you might be interested in as background information. Your right, I should have done it another way.-- Aspro ( talk) 21:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the DRN regarding the use of Harriet Hall's blog post in the Michael Greger article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Michael Greger. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 04:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissy, Just a minor correction to your comment (the noise levels there mean it's easy to be misled by misrepresentations of others). I don't think anyone is talking about getting rid of IBs in general—I have never come across a single editor who thinks we should get rid of them entirely and I don't think I am misrepresenting anyone who occasionally argues against IBs. To my mind (and probably most others who have a more flexible approach to the use of IBs, for some subjects an IB isn't just an improvement, it's absolutely essential. When I look at plant articles, for example, I want to see the genus he box, along with other bullets of facts that don't work well in open text. When it comes to biographies, it's slightly different. Some type of people (sportsmen, politicians, military employees, etc – anyone with a career that involves positions/ranks or statistics) need the IB to hold a summary of professional achievements or positions. When it comes to people in the arts, the IB is not useful. It contains the fluff of the individual (dates of birth, death, etc), but it's not possible to adequately put across the reason for their notability in the box (think Coward - how do you get across what the essence of him is within the restrictive confines of the box? You can't: you need text to explain the context of him and his work). Despite being misrepresented by IB Warriors in every discussion I've ever had about them, I am a huge fan of IBs, but only when they are used properly. I know that mine is not a view shared by all, but the one-size-fits-all mindset isn't something that works either for the inclusionists or the exclusionists. Still, I hope this is the last thing I ever have to write about the flaming things: I shall enjoy not discussing them during my retirement! Cheers – Gavin ( talk) 18:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Left message to talk page. Take part to discussion, ok? ※ 〶 20:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit I can't seem to find something in to support your statement "This is contrary to WP:Categorization and should be discussed at the Talk page first". Can you point out what you are specifically referring to? Thanks. Djflem ( talk) 19:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
In answer to your question: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. Didn't have time to put it in the edit summary, but it is in the block notice for the IP. Favonian ( talk) 17:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
See Arkell v. Pressdram. That is all. Guy ( Help!) 00:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thought you'd find this video kind of interesting in light of the stereotypies article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e5kj5bzRAI 'Chrome's a weaver... you can see him starting to do it a bit. (and the cut-out stall door doesn't stop him) Montanabw (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
You requested a talk...
So how is it some pages have hundreds of pictures, and just adding 2 extra ones along with links makes it too much now?
Or is their a hidden agenda why you want it removed?
Bernate ( talk) 19:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
So no reason? Please cite the rules of how much pictures are allowed that restricts what I posted? You are the one who requested this after erasing it without a valid reason, so what rules did it break, show me.
Bernate ( talk) 19:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
You mean to say it is common practice to remove things that you dont want and make it unseen so it holds your own agenda?
You still gave no restrictions that pertain to what you are talking about. Where does the rules restrict what I posted? Or are you going to just keep repeating your self and be contradicting to the wiki guidelines?
Bernate ( talk) 19:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Then why didn't you make a discussion there titled WHY I REMOVED WHAT I DID.
Because you still gave no reason why you did it.
Bernate ( talk) 20:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
No you didn't, cite where wiki restricts it. The lion page has 3x as more pictures than the asiatic lion /info/en/?search=Lion
The charade you're playing is starting to look obvious why you removed it.
Bernate ( talk) 20:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
You are starting to unravel your true purpose why you did it, because I made zero accusations, I merely pointed out you have no valid reason via restrictions from Wikipedia rules that co-sign with what you did. Why take it there at this point when YOU are the one claiming it to be against the rules, where is the rules you are talking about that RESTRICTS my contribution?
Bernate ( talk) 20:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
When someone provides ZERO-Restrictions and saying inadvertently I removed it because (IT FOLLOWS THE RULES) then yes, I am allowed to point out you not having an argument for removing it, other than 'I don't wan't anyone to see it'. The asiatic talk page? For what, it will go unanswered anyway as many post dont get replied to for months, I don't have time to wait months for something that has no restrictions other than your ulterior motives you yet to answer for, since YOU, are the person who wants to restrict it, be so kindly to present why YOU removed it. Bernate ( talk) 20:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no restrictions or wiki-laws that you can cite to that makes your reason valid.So if I was to re-edit and undo it with the reason, this page DOES NOT have enough pictures (the opposite of your reason...you would be able to find a restriction for it? No you wouldnt, hence it is not a valid reason other than your WP:NPOVD which is now becoming hilariously obvious. Bernate ( talk) 20:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Bernate ( talk) 20:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
You already know it, the same reason why you removed it, you are bias, hence you do not wish for anyone to know that a lion has been documented killing a tiger IN THE WILD, or maybe you could actually show us FOR ONCE, where Wikipedia has a law that a page can only have a certain amount of pictures, which is YOUR ONLY ARGUMENT GIVEN. A argument not supported by Wikipedia guidelines. Quite sad really that Wikipedia is subjected to your kind, people who want to hide the truth from the world for their own selfish agendas. Bernate ( talk) 20:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
No, because you did not undo what you did, kindly undo what you have done, if not, open a discussion in the talk page and give everyone several reasons why they should NOT be apart of the page. As it is about the asiatic lion, one at the ganges river and the other at the tapti river. Please give up VALID reasons that are NOT restrictions on wikipedia why you want it removed and obliterated from history like some nazi who wants to destroy history.
Than I'll be happy to concede to your arguments. Until then, you are trolling. Bernate ( talk) 20:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I am just calling things as it is because you REFUSE to give a valid reason that does not restrict the rules of wikipedia, there are 20 pictures: /info/en/?search=Asiatic_lion
there are 58 pictures on the lion page: /info/en/?search=Lion
That is THREE TIMES MORE pictures than the asiatic lion page, so you are left with three options, go to the lion page and erase all the 58 pictures because it by far exceeds the asiatic lion page which you refuse to give a valid reason for to propagate, or...undo your editing in removing it restoring the fully justifiable links that ARE RELATE TO THE PAGE...or thirdly, make a discussion and GIVE REASONS why you removed things that WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT RESTRICT. At this point you are starting to sound both hypocritical and contradicting. So you are saying that my nazi statement would thence be false? The nazi's destroyed art to make it that no one knows the historical truth of its substance, exactly what you are doing. I showed the WP:NPOVD because it is made to dispute the neutrality, in other words show that you are bias, since you haven't given any restrictions, thats pretty much what you are doing, how am I wrong? Bernate ( talk) 21:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Only you are refusing to do this, I bet as soon as you do or I do make a discussion there you will flop on your reasons, in that case, challenge excepted, I will make a page specifically titled why does Drchrissy refuse to except valid sources and contradict the guidelines and rules of wikipedia.
Bernate ( talk) 21:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Whats the matter, can't come up with a good argument to something you intended to troll on? It is now created, I await your such intelligent and valid points.
Bernate ( talk) 21:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for proving me right, you just didnt want it on because you are bias...so sad its almost pathetic. Bernate ( talk) 21:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
With another yet pathetic and contradicting answer. Bernate ( talk) 22:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
lol wow, so you were just waiting for the three law rule to hide the info even further? Man you are desperate and pathetic. It must really bother you that a lion killed a tiger in the wild, and you not being able to find anything of vice versa. Some people call that butt hurt. Bernate ( talk) 22:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Oshwah I'M STILL WAITING FOR THE RESTRICTION....where is my contribution restricted by Wikipedia? WHERE!!! Bernate ( talk) 22:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Harassing? shes VANDALIZING my contribution with FALSELY stating things that have NO RESTRICTIONS, SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! THIS IS VANDALISM! Bernate ( talk) 22:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
yeah, you commend people for vandalism, right on, puh....I wont comment here again, I see through her sick joke of a bias ulterior agenda. No need to further prove that point. Get her way, I don't care, hang on to bias and propagated narratives. Its sickening to know...but the truth will always avail. I wont post here again, so get in your last word to make your self feel better Bernate ( talk) 23:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
DrChrissy, I highly commend you for your patience and your civility despite the opposite being thrown at you today. Completely ignoring the harassment and the accusations being tossed at you, and keeping the topic at-hand towards policy and the content in question is a very rare skill that even many of our best contributors fall short with. You've probably seen my talk page many times; it gets trashed, vandalized, and pooped on with outing and accusations all the time. If you're like me, that stuff makes you smirk or even laugh at the most, and it doesn't get to you at all - because, really, it's all just silly anyways. Please know that this skill you possess is a diamond in a great pile of sand, that it's what we need on this project, and that it absolutely does not go unnoticed - at least by me, it doesn't :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC) |
Hello, DrChrissy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissie, trying to understand your comments on my "Stotting" edits and what's required to present the material correctly. Thanks for any help. Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookj651 ( talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I saw that sub-thread at ANI where the other editor made personal attacks against you, and I hatted it. Sorry that that happened to you. The other editor's conduct was atrocious. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
Merry Christmas |
Hoping you stay warm and have lots of good times and good food this holiday season! White Arabian Filly Neigh |
![]() |
Wishing you a
Charlie Russell Christmas, DrChrissy! |
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw (talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissy, at the direction of the Arbitration Committee, an arbitration amendment request that you were listed as a party to has been closed and archived here. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for all of your work on wp. Do you know about the Science article "Great apes anticipate that other individuals will act according to false beliefs" Science 07 Oct 2016: Vol. 354, Issue 6308, pp. 110-114 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf8110
I think that should be discussed on the ToM page. Do you agree? If so, can/will/do you want to do it? If not, would you encourage me to do it?
I'm not an expert in the subject. I was a geneticist. Dennis Drdfp ( talk) 02:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
In case you don't get the notification.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 23:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC))
*@ DrChrissy: A draft of a long set of thoughts. I am deliberately avoiding the word harangue.:O)( Littleolive oil ( talk) 23:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC))
(my finest hour) I'm sorry, I didn't know that I used an inappropriate source. Thanks for your correction. Best Regards,
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
In addition, you are warned that repeating this conduct may lead to additional sanctions such as an an interaction ban. Sandstein 08:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: I have sent you an email. DrChrissy (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
We have a policy ( WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED) that it is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them. Some of you reading this may be aware that I recently raised a case at AE in this regard and I have ended up being blocked for mentioning my topic ban. So what was I supposed to do? Make a vague accusation that an unnamed editor mentioned my non-stated Topic ban over at an unspecified article? Of course I would have been asked for more details. Providing more details is in itself highly problematic as I have been told that simply linking/discussing someone discussing my topic ban is a violation of my topic ban. So, if I believe an editor is taking advantage of my topic ban, how and where do I raise this issue? - or perhaps this policy is not worth the paper/screen it is written on and needs deleting thereby making way for the ensuing let's have a free-for-all on discussing each others topic bans. DrChrissy (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: pinging to be polite - I am not asking for a reply but of course you may do so if you wish. I am getting some really mixed messages here. In this thread [33], it is indicated to me that AE is exactly the venue I should have raised my concerns which have led to my block and that WP:BANEX allows the naming of others in an interaction ban and topic bans. However, others are telling me it was completely the wrong venue and I was not allowed to name my topic ban. Can anyone explain? DrChrissy (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone like to comment on whether I can specify on my user page that I have been topic banned and state the subject of that topic ban and the ARBCOM proceedings that led to that sanction? DrChrissy (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your e-mail, which I reproduce below for the sake of transparency:
Although you did not ask to be unblocked, blocks and other sanctions on Wikipedia are intended to be preventative, not punitive. That is, they should last only as long as they are (likely) needed to prevent the reoccurrence of the conduct for which they were imposed. Your e-mail leaves me reasonably confident that the block is no longer needed. It is accordingly lifted. Regards, Sandstein 20:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed it is good news - Thank you @ Sandstein:. DrChrissy (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Slatersteven (
talk)
18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Dan Koehl. I noticed that you made a change to an article,
Lychee and Dog Meat Festival, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to
include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Dan Koehl (
talk)
17:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I was clearly wrong about Wikipedia spelling policy. Because the enormous majority of the articles seem to use US spelling, I made the assumption that it was the standard.
In fact, as was pointed out to me, there is no standard. I think that's a mistake, but I'm a remarkably minor editor and don't feel like making an issue of it.
Thank you. IAmNitpicking ( talk) 13:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Don't worry too much about this. I think anyone from the UK or the US has felt like this at some time. I edit mainly in the area of animal behaviour and I still dislike having to write "behavior" in some articles - but we learn to live with it. Happy editing. DrChrissy (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I just saw your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Objectionable edit summary. I think that you and Nyttend should come and see where I live for a few days. We have had one of the coldest January/February in over 15 years. We usually get one or two -40 C/F days each year but this year we have had days on end of temperatures below -40 C/F and the coldest this year was −42 °C (−44 °F). We used to get this type of weather years ago but we aren't used to it any more. It's currently warmed up to −31 °C (−24 °F) but as per usual with the warmer temperatures comes the blizzard. It's not to bad yet, only around 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) but it is supposed to go up to 70 kn (130 km/h; 81 mph) later. Enjoy your lovely warm spring weather which I see is about 9 °C (48 °F). Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Any particular part of my proposed revision that you want me to source? Most of what I wrote is based on my own life experience. As I am both a health and environmentally-conscious person, I have many good reasons for wanting to add venison to my diet. It has a much higher nutritional value than most commercial meat, and I see it has more natural and ethically sound. Further research has given me reason to think that both my family and I could benefit from the lean protein found in the meat muscle of wild deer who have spent their lives in nature on a diet of grass and wild plants. Yet my parents can't fathom the thought of my pointing and firing a gun to take the life of such a beautiful animal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.60.41.24 ( talk) 02:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
link to policy or I'm reverting. Asmrulz ( talk) 00:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#DrChrissy. Notification of an AE request I am required to give you.
NeilN
talk to me
17:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. —
Coffee //
have a cup //
beans //
19:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia. This is as a result of the consensus reached here:
[37]. You've been given numerous chances by the community, which have led to multiple blocks, and multiple topic bans. Additionally you have a current IBAN with another user, and there is clear evidence you have used AN/I to try to pile on in a debate, or try to get those you are in disagreement blocked or disciplined.
This MUST stop now. You're deliberately skirting the line of your restrictions (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Correct place to report interaction ban violation for a recent example where you tried to have someone again disciplined, without evidence to the contrary.).
The community is clear on this: Any future behavior such as this, showing up on AN or AN/I just to stir up trouble, or snipe at editors you have disagreed with, or other general bad-faith, disruptive behavior will result in a final indefinite block for your account.
This is your last chance, please make the most of it and let these things go. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 15:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I just saw your comment at the Village Pump, and realized that you are back. Welcome! I really do hope that you will be around for the long-term. And I hope that you accept that you have to take seriously the feedback you got a month ago, in order for that to happen. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Bravery Barnstar. | |
For standing up for and defending the ground of what is known and understood. Aspro ( talk) 16:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC) |
@ Aspro: Thanks very much for the barnstar - much appreciated. Several days ago I sent you an email thanking you, but I'm not sure how often you check your email. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey there, re: this, I think you meant to revert the addition of "bloodless", but instead your reversion re-added the "Portuguese" thing that I was removing, which I don't think was your intention. However, after I followed the link back to the Flickr source, the photographer describes it as Portuguese style (which wasn't clear from the Wikipedia upload data) but also, it does appear to be bloodless. The spears are Velcro-tipped and the bull is wearing a Velcro hump vest (for lack of better phrase...) Perhaps a better image from the photostream would be better. Regards, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 02:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
To use the first part of the article content for the glossary entry with its source, and in keeping with the depth of sourcing I've been using there, I've tracked down the detail for The One Show citation you used, which I thought you might want to use in the Whiffling article:
Ideally, I would want to add the |minutes= parameter. Do you possibly have this recorded and could find out? Cheers-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk)
Ok, so there's a chicken in the US referred to as the " Easter Egger" which is supposed to lay a blue-green colored egg. My daughter has one such hen but the eggs she laysthe hen, not my daughter, although she's had egg on her face from time to time like her Mom are not blue-green rather they are white with a grayish tint. Is there something she should be feeding the hen that corrects whatever is wrong with the color? For example, we add things to the soil to make a flower a certain color (blue or pink), and I was wondering if the same applied to hens laying eggs. Is it a PH balance issue, or lack of iron, or something similar which is causing her to lay grayish eggs? Does it have something to do with the rooster? Should the rooster also be an Easter Egger? Atsme 📞 📧 23:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Not that a rooster is necessary.23:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, it is great running into you again. I thought that if a wikilink was included in a statement, and that if the references were in the article that was linked, this would be considered an appropriate way to reference. I typically include refs for all my content. I have about 15refs to go along with the content I inserted. I will try to pick out the best.
Hi DrChrissy! Did you intend this edit? It appears out of place. -- ToE 16:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)