This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Opuscalgary (talk | contribs) at 14:22, 8 March 2007 (Anti troll patrolling..). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:22, 8 March 2007 by Opuscalgary (talk | contribs) (Anti troll patrolling..)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Archives |
|---|
How to respond to personal attacks
You need to spend less time on the internet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.129 (talk • contribs)
- I appreciated your concern with my personal life and spending too much time on Misplaced Pages. Internet addiction is a real disorder. However, I do not suffer from it (maybe I am in denial). Well, take it easy and thanks again for your concern. Chris Kreider 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Chris chris chrisy chris chris. You clearly do have an internet problem. Authoring an article on the USS Hunchback is one of the clearest signs. I suggest you stop, log off, unplug the computer, maybe even throw it away, and try to strike up a conversation with the nearest girl. It will be difficult at first, human contact, but please, just try. It is so much better than reading about girls on wikipedia. AND NO ONLINE DATING THAT WOULD ONLY DRAG YOU DEEPER INTO THIS HOLE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.129 (talk • contribs)
- I was first tempted to remove this as a personal attack. But, I really dont care and think it is kind of funny so, this is why it stays
- On a random note, here is my response. "As i stated before, thank you for your concern with my personal life, most recently with my lack of human contact and needing to talk to a girl. I generally dont like to throw this information around but, to apease your concern, I do have a girlfriend. (Yes, she is real but you will have to take my word for it). Articles like the USS Hunchback are something to do that is not work related or even people related (some people, including myself, may have Introverted tendancies. In all, i appreciated your concern. Perhaps you might spend less time making personal attacks and more time socializing or even enhancing wikipedia!. If you need any help with this, please let me know. Thanks, Chris Kreider 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)"
- Hahaha, I love trolls. Of course, they never realize how much time they're wasting... -- feb 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeopardy! in popular culture AfD
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeopardy! in popular culture. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Robert K S 09:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would live to comment however I am leaving now for the rest of the weekend. THere is an explanation of why I deleted it in my archive for jan-feb 07. gl. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that. The above is boilerplate text generated by the required template. I was just following protocol. Enjoy your trip! Robert K S 12:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Chris -- the minor disturbance over using "WP:COI" to refer to the relatively minor conflict of interest involved in this debate led me to create Misplaced Pages:Vested interest as a separate topic from WP:COI. Have a look over it, see if there's anything worthwhile that could be added. Thanks! Mangojuice 18:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- In specific, we'll see, there's a DRV. In general: I think it's totally legit to consider the strength of arguments in an AfD. Vested interests are a (small) part of that (sometimes). I think the argument "if this is deleted, cruft will go back on the main page" is a weak argument no matter who gives it... but it is weaker still when the argument is given because of a vested interest. But I do think people can feel insulted when their behavior is linked to WP:COI, since it's about such serious stuff, which is why I created the essay. (See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! auditions for another example: coincidentally, both articles were about Jeopardy.) Mangojuice 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just my two cents here, but I get the feeling if Chris had just put "conflict of interest" instead of "conflict of interest", this would have all been over a while ago. Ah, semantics. :) Bubba hotep 19:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- In specific, we'll see, there's a DRV. In general: I think it's totally legit to consider the strength of arguments in an AfD. Vested interests are a (small) part of that (sometimes). I think the argument "if this is deleted, cruft will go back on the main page" is a weak argument no matter who gives it... but it is weaker still when the argument is given because of a vested interest. But I do think people can feel insulted when their behavior is linked to WP:COI, since it's about such serious stuff, which is why I created the essay. (See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! auditions for another example: coincidentally, both articles were about Jeopardy.) Mangojuice 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Avro Arrow
Hi Mr. Chrislk02, Thanks for your help on all the aircraft projects to which I have submitted my pittance of knowledge. BTW, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro CF-105 Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).
A storm brewing
Hi Chris, I may need you help in a while with a situation that's brewing, so I wanted to give you a heads-up. User:Rillian, who is generally a good contributor to space-related articles (although he can be contentious at times) is insisting on adding "astronaut infoboxes" to the articles of Doug Shane and Peter Siebold. Problem is, neither of these gentlemen are officially recognized as astronauts by NASA or the FAA. The two had originally been named to fly SpaceShipOne, but eventually only Melvill and Binnie flew it into space and received their FAA astronaut wings. There was an extensive discussion of this at Talk:Astronaut, and consensus was that these two shouldn't be called astronauts in the encyclopedia. Rillian, however, keeps adding this material back in, citing a discussion on Astronaut that doesn't exist, despite not having any sources (thus failing WP:V) and despite consensus. Another editor and I have been reverting. My main concern is that this presents our readers with inaccurate information. Siebold and Shane are fantastic test pilots, and brilliant engineers, but they are not recognized by any official body as astronauts, and Misplaced Pages should not be in the business of "creating" notability. I have started the process of adding official WP:TUSER warning templates (I'm currently only at {{uw-unsourced2}} level at the moment, but if this editor keeps pushing it, we could be in a situatin where admin followup to the warning process is needed. Thus, this briefing. Hope this all makes sense.... Akradecki 16:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have officially started investigating into this in attempts to resolve it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're referring to re: "Unsourced content". I'm adding an infobox, not content. This same infobox is present on all other people listed on List of astronauts by selection. Why would Shane and Siebold be different? Regards, Rillian 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The infobox contains the same content as the article, occupation, birth date, etc. Nothing new to source. Rillian 15:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Talk page for the infobox contains lots of discussion related to the development of the infobox, who it should be applied to, and what terms should be used. As the infobox then was being applied all eligible articles, Akradecki objected to Shane and Siebold, apparently based on his personal opinion as to who should be classified as an astronaut. He posted his opionion on Talk:Astronaut. I responded and he, I and one other editor engaged in a non-conclusive discussion. Rillian 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- They are listed as "Astronauts" on SpaceShipOne, they are included in the List of astronauts by selection, and they meet the definition from Astronaut, to wit "a person trained by a human spaceflight program to pilot a spacecraft. The content of the Shane and Siebold articles provides the cited evidence that they are trained by a human spaceflight program to pilot a spacecraft. Why would the infobox be appropriate for everyone else on List of astronauts by selection including Melville and Binnie, but not Shane and Siebold? Rillian 17:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- We appear to be engaged in some circular reasoning. You request that I cite a source that states Shane and Siebold are "officially astronauts". Just as there is no official source for who is a country music singer, we have to look to the facts. The English word "astronaut" is commonly defined as "A person trained to pilot, navigate, or otherwise participate as a crew member of a spacecraft." As cited by other editors in their articles, Shane and Siebold, along with Melville and Binnie, were trained to pilot SpaceShipOne. SpaceShipOne is spacecraft. The infobox is not claiming that they flew in space or earned FAA Astronaut Wings, simply that, along with everyone else in[REDACTED] who has trained to pilot, navigate, or otherwise participate as a crew member of a spacecraft, the astronaut infobox is appropriate. Rillian 17:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know this is nitpicking, but at the time, SS1 was certified by the FAA as an experimental aircraft in the glider category. It wasn't until just before the first launch that this was changed. Akradecki 18:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- (copy of comment I put on Rillian's page) With all due respect, there are official sources for who an astronaut is. The various branches of the military and NASA award astronaut wings for a reason: this is an official designation. Same with the FAA for commericial astronauts. Shane and Siebold were originally announced at the beginning of the SS1 program as part of the group of four who would become astronauts through the program, but ultimately, instead of each piloting one of the four planned flights, only Binnie and Melvill flew the missions, and only those two were officially designated as astronauts by the FAA. There is sources/cites for this information (which I've already added where appropriate). Akradecki 18:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to address your last response. I'm not "making a connection", I'm stating a fact based on citations of reliable sources. There are multiple, reliable citations that they trained to fly a spacecraft, QED they are astronauts. There is no official body that assigns the term "astronaut". It's an English word for a person trained to pilot, navigate, or otherwise participate as a crew member of a spacecraft. Regards, Rillian 17:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't agree with your reasoning. By your logic, if a professional country music singer is someone who sings country music and I want to apply the country music singer infobox, multiple citations of the person repeatedly and publically singing country music as their profession would not be enough, I would also have to find a source that used the label "country music singer" for the person. I don't think this is in line with WP:V. However, I certainly support the intent of your comments and will seek out sources that meet your critera. Cheers Rillian 18:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- A blog does not count as a valid reference. Akradecki 18:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- We appear to be engaged in some circular reasoning. You request that I cite a source that states Shane and Siebold are "officially astronauts". Just as there is no official source for who is a country music singer, we have to look to the facts. The English word "astronaut" is commonly defined as "A person trained to pilot, navigate, or otherwise participate as a crew member of a spacecraft." As cited by other editors in their articles, Shane and Siebold, along with Melville and Binnie, were trained to pilot SpaceShipOne. SpaceShipOne is spacecraft. The infobox is not claiming that they flew in space or earned FAA Astronaut Wings, simply that, along with everyone else in[REDACTED] who has trained to pilot, navigate, or otherwise participate as a crew member of a spacecraft, the astronaut infobox is appropriate. Rillian 17:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't be difficult at all to find a source that called a country western singer a country western singer, and if no sources did, then clearly we would call the label into question. The same is true of astronauts, and one can surely find dozens of sources identifying Melville or Binnie as astronauts. The fact that Rillian seems to be the only person referring to Shane and Siebold as astronauts would indicate that no one else considers them to be astronauts. Even the source Rillian added to Doug Shane, claiming to assert his astronaut title, did not include the word astronaut anywhere. Additionally, it should be noted that the introduction to Astronaut, i.e., the definition Rillian continuously uses in his assertions of who is and who is not an astronaut, was crafted by Rillian himself. Thus, it is not Doug Shane and Peter Siebold which must be modified to match Astronaut – on the contrary, because Rillain has yet to show that anyone besides himself considers these two to be astronauts, the definition on Astronaut ought to be amended to more accurately reflect who is and is not considered an astronaut by consensus. — Swpb 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- If Riliam finds a reliable third party source claiming that said individuals are astronauts, it is hard to dispute that, is it not? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Now, I'm not sure what to do. Per your suggestion, I added four citations from non-wiki sources including Space.com and the X-Prize web site that use the label "astronaut" for Peter Siebold. Swpb and Akradecki continue to remove the infobox, stating "unsourced content". Your thoughts? Rillian 19:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have not reverted since the addition of these sources. Perhaps Rillian ought to consider adding decent sources to his claims after the first time they are removed for being unsourced, rather than reverting the removals over six times as he has done in the last few days before being troubled to find sources for his claims, then casting the reversions of other editors of his unsourced statements as being in bad faith. — Swpb 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- With the end of the SS1 program, there are no currently scheduled flights for the Scaled Composites astronauts. The next iteration, the Virgin Galactic / SS2 program is in development. However, going into space or being currently scheduled to go into space is not a consensus requirement to be labeled an astronaut - see Talk:Astronaut. Regards Rillian 19:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The sources from space.com appeared reliable to me. I have commented them on one of the articles in question talk page (I forget which one). As far as I can see, the sources say they are astronauts. Are there sources that say they are not? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen the sources from Space.com, problem with them and astronautix, is the date: they are from when the four were announced as the ones to become the astronauts. In the end, Shane and Siebold didn't. Shane didn't even fly SS1, as he became the project manager instead. Akradecki 21:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is a good counter argument. Rillian, what do you have to say? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- While waiting for Rillian's response, I'd like to add another thought. If you decide that the refs are valid, I'd strongly suggest that, in the interest of providing clear, accurate information to our readers, a short para that reads like: "While Doug Shane was originally named as one of the four test pilots where were to become astronauts through the Tier One program, Shane never actually flew SpaceShipOne during the test program. Though informally referred to in some sources as an astronaut, he did not receive the official designation as a Commercial Astronaut by the FAA office that regulates civilian space issues." As similar statement would be applicable to Siebold, who did fly SS1 during atmospheric test missions, but not into space, and he, too, is not officially recognized as an astronaut. Akradecki 21:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is a good counter argument. Rillian, what do you have to say? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen the sources from Space.com, problem with them and astronautix, is the date: they are from when the four were announced as the ones to become the astronauts. In the end, Shane and Siebold didn't. Shane didn't even fly SS1, as he became the project manager instead. Akradecki 21:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The sources from space.com appeared reliable to me. I have commented them on one of the articles in question talk page (I forget which one). As far as I can see, the sources say they are astronauts. Are there sources that say they are not? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- With the end of the SS1 program, there are no currently scheduled flights for the Scaled Composites astronauts. The next iteration, the Virgin Galactic / SS2 program is in development. However, going into space or being currently scheduled to go into space is not a consensus requirement to be labeled an astronaut - see Talk:Astronaut. Regards Rillian 19:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Made my response on Talk:Peter Siebold to keep the discussion in one place. Rillian 02:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Official note of gratitude
Thanks for the nomination and faith. Guess we've both come a long way since those early days on vandal patrol. Rest assured, I will not let you down. And I look forward to the recommencement of the talk page activity of old! Thanks, buddy. Now, where's the work?! :) Bubba hotep 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Plus, I'm quite wounded that I passed 17k without a mention (but glad it didn't during "the process"). ;) Bubba hotep 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Pictures to use
Hello, I would like to offer my original avation images to any Wiki you see fit. They are a little raw, but feel free to use them if you can.
They are mostly of various airports and museums in the US. There are some pretty detailed ones of the Connie and 404 from Kansas City. I also have scans of my timetables as well.
If this is not relevant to your contribution area, please post this or pass it to who you think could use this info.
Older site with Full-Size Pictures:
http://www.chriscummings.cc/air/
Newer site with full collection: http://www.chriscummings.cc/air2/
Airline timetables: http://www.chriscummings.cc/timetables/
Telegram for Mr K
Hey, Chris - been a bit busy today out and about with the new tools. Bit like getting a new toy, really (although a very serious business, I know :)). What is that template you use for "reminding" people to follow the proper procedure for AIV reports, by the way? Bubba hotep 22:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Boneablaze
FYI -- see:
More LAN gaming center drama brewing? I'm not sure any action is presently required but this may bear watching. --A. B. 01:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
A little help please
over here at 66.93.251.114 we had a block out in place for really no reason after you unblocked us, check out the contributions after you originally unblocked on the 27th. My best guess is someone thought I was trying to avoid a block I had on me at the time, anyway that has all been lifted and I promise we won't make you sorry for lifting the block if you do. thanks Freakdomination 06:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have already done it once. I warned that I would not do it again. I looked at the contribution history and it appears as though you used the IP to avoid the block on your username. I will not lift the block. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Seriously my username doesn't have a block or I wouldn't be able to post here on your talk page and the IP wan't used to avoid any blocks so I'm justy asking to get just a small break here from a fellow pilot. Please hear me out. Freakdomination 03:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know your username isent blocked. The IP was used for block evasion, that was what I am guessing made it get re-blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- But if you check the contibs there is no evidence of any kind of block evasion, please help me out I promise I won't make you sorry you did. Freakdomination 04:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know your username isent blocked. The IP was used for block evasion, that was what I am guessing made it get re-blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Seriously my username doesn't have a block or I wouldn't be able to post here on your talk page and the IP wan't used to avoid any blocks so I'm justy asking to get just a small break here from a fellow pilot. Please hear me out. Freakdomination 03:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
DiamondVoice
Hi, you beat me to blocking this account - actually, I was going to indef him/her, as they declared they wanted to leave and were seemingly asking for "right to vanish". Let them, shall we? I blocked the socks too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are welcome to indef. I was not in on a sock discussion or anything. I just blocked based on what i saw them doing. By all means, feel free to lengthen it. I did protect the page to prevent soapboxery and trolling. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not be a fool
God help me. The userbox has been discussed for I don't know how many times. Please do not provoke me, as the others attempted to do, and tell me before doing something this stupid. Everyone has agreed my userbox stays. And next time, please do not add userboxes to my userpage with an unknown ip. Cheers. Embargo 19:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Please show me a discussion where it says your userbox stays. In the future, please refrain from making personal attacks, such as the statement, " And next time, please do not add userboxes to my userpage with an unknown ip". That is a false statement and an innapropriate accusation. The action taken was made in Good Faith and in also by Being bold. If I feel your userpage is in violation of policies, I will try to remedy the situation. If it provokes you, I apolagzie perhaps you should read up on WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL and perhaps even WP:AGF. Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and for the record was the revision i removed. The version you replaced it with, I have no issue with. There is a big differente between "This user supports Hezbollah to Israeli massacres"(version i removed) and, "This user supports resistance to Israeli hostilities."(version it was replaced with). I stand 100% by my orignial removal as it is 100% innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You people just do not know when to give up. I do not want to discuss this issue any further, have the decency to leave me alone if you will. Many, many userpage on Misplaced Pages have userboxes showing support for Israel. Many admins discussed this issue, and they decided to keep it, as others are allowed to keep it. Now please, leave your Christian fundamentalist opinions outside, and do not attempt to provoke another Arab into getting blocked. Embargo 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"This user supports Hezollah to Israeli massacres" is obviously grammatically incorrect, and if you look at the page history, you might see my page has been vandalised, most probably by you. Leave me alone if you will. Embargo 20:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I told you, it was not me who wrote "This user supports Hezbollah to Israeli massacres" but someone who vandalized my page 1. I think you know that by now. Embargo 20:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above user's lack of civility should be noted here: where he refers to you clearly, as garbage. ThuranX 00:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
G8
I've posted what I hope is a voice of reason on the talk page, can you take a look and possibly unprotect the page please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done. For the record, if it gets nasty again, I will gladly protect it again. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. A certain person seems to have given up arguing, so I can't imagine that many problems. I've amended the template as well, from this version to a new version. Does that look ok? I wanted to try and keep the template consistent with the infobox on G8, so thought it best to try and keep the EU seperate. One Night In Hackney303 00:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear, looks like the person I filed an RfC against is stalking me...can you intervene please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I reverted it. IF he breaks WP:3RR, warn him as he approaches it and then alert me when he does. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Going downhill fast..... One Night In Hackney303 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I'm staying calm. I don't think his actions are doing him any favours considering he's currently got an RfC open about him anyway. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 01:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Going downhill fast..... One Night In Hackney303 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I reverted it. IF he breaks WP:3RR, warn him as he approaches it and then alert me when he does. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear, looks like the person I filed an RfC against is stalking me...can you intervene please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. A certain person seems to have given up arguing, so I can't imagine that many problems. I've amended the template as well, from this version to a new version. Does that look ok? I wanted to try and keep the template consistent with the infobox on G8, so thought it best to try and keep the EU seperate. One Night In Hackney303 00:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Re:G8
Hey. I made one edit to the page- so I have not edit warred. Indeed, I have started a new discussion on the talk page to determine if consensus has been reached. I can't see from the talk page that this has happened yet. I am certainly against the inclusion of the EU in the infobox and template. Hopefully some more users will respond in the talk page, and we can resolve. Thanks Astrotrain 01:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
My User page
Can I remake my page Just without the game link? By the way Thanks for unblocking me. The Real Phantom Triffle 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
NASA
Can you take a look at the recent history of the NASA page? It gets vandalized just about every day, including multiple times today. I think it's a good candidate for semi-protection, preferably long-term. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Vandalism has piced up today. It is not as bad oer time (5 or so edits a day is pretty low traffic). However, being anon vandalism picked up today, I semi protected it for a week. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. A week is fine. - BillCJ 17:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Second opinion needed please
I'm currently working on an article here. The part I'm struggling with is the "British agent" section. According to an obituary published by one newspaper in 2003 he became an agent in 1985, but another says 1987. However the more comprehensive source I'm using is a book published by an ex-member of the agency that handled him which was published in 2004, and obviously uses information that wouldn't have been to most (if not all) journalists in 2003.
So I'm wondering what the best way to handle all the contradiction is? I'm thinking along the lines of starting the section with something like "Accounts of when Nelson became a British agent vary, but according to former FRU member Martin Ingram....", then add a footnote stating what various other sources say. Does that sound the best thing to do? Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ill look into it tommorow! If you cant wait, let me know. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- No rush, thanks. One Night In Hackney303 23:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
A Little Help not urgent
Is there a place where I can find all the[REDACTED] users names? Thanks Bloddyfriday 23:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Chris, I've replied for you here (sorry for butting in!) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The S.P.E.C.T.R.E Award for eliminating intruders
|
File:Ankaracat.jpgThe S.P.E.C.T.R.E Award for elimination | |
| I Ernst Stavro Blofeld present you with the SPECTRE anti-vandalism barnstar for you recent efforts in blocking vandalism. Your contribution in protecting this site is much appreciated!Sir Blofeld |
♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 10:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Anti troll patrolling..
Please dont applies both ways, Chris.. Please dont remove talk sections from other editors talk pages. This can be viewed as vandalism. Should this behavior continue you will be temporarily blocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Opus notes: As you are aware, billCJ has been circulating a note claiming that I use sock puppets. Please advise him to stop his 'war tactics. ' They were entirely unprovoked. Opuscalgary 14:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)