ChrisG

Hello Chris, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela 11:45, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

Great work on the Dune summaries, nicely done :) Was just about to greet you myself, so greetings! Dysprosia 11:46, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Chris, I have no problems with that paragraph. Adam 23:41, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Jesus is considered to be a major religious figure by several other religions" - I am still entirely unpersuaded that this is true. Lir's examples amounted to two Christian sects, the Mormons and the Rastas, and a few obscure cults no-one has ever heard of. But if no-one else is willing to argue about it, I don't think I can be bothered. :/ Adam 11:32, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In order for there to be a compromise, there should be an actual compromise; some kind of "giving of ground" on both sides. The above paragraph, as far as I can tell, does not in any way reflect the information which I was trying to add (and that Carr was trying to delete); those points being A: Jesus is seen as the fulfillment of the Judaic Messainic prophecies B: Jesus is seen, by a significant group, as an ascetic; while the new paragraph does include some of my edits, it does not compromise on those points for which the edit war occurred. I support the below paragraphs, which are a compromise:
- Jesus Christ (or Jesus of Nazareth, see alternate names below) (c. 4 BC - c. 30) was, according to the Christian religion, the Messiah and Son of God; who brought salvation to humanity, through his crucifixion and resurrection. Jesus is recognized by several other religions, for instance, many Muslims consider him to have been an ascetic prophet.
- The primary source of historical knowledge, about Jesus, is contained within the Gospels, which Christians view as the divinely inspired writings of God. Most secular historians accept that the Gospels are sufficient evidence that Jesus existed; but, do not agree that the details, or particulars of his life and death, are accurately expressed by the Gospels.
  - Lirath Q. Pynnor

Well I'm sorry to be difficult, Lir, but there are limits to compromise. If you say 2 and 2 make 4, and I say 2 and 2 make 6, it is not a compromise to say that 2 and 2 make 5, because one statement is true and the other is false, and a compromise between truth and untruth is still untruth. I think your statement that "other religions" recognise Jesus is bunk, and when I asked you to substantiate it you were unable to do so. I still think, therefore, that it should be deleted.

I have decided, however, that as a secular historian I can't participate in trying to negotiate the editing this article, because people like you have too great a stake in your theological position to be able to discuss the question in the vocabulary of rationalism, whose assumptions you don't share. I am therefore withdrawing, and I might at some future time write an article of my own called Jesus as historical figure where I can write from evidence rather than have to argue with zealots. Adam 13:47, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

At present I feel there is not enough room in the Internet for Lir and me, but I may feel more amenable tomorrow :) Adam 14:22, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Chris, please comment on Talk:Jesus Christ about whether I should now unprotect Jesus Christ. (If you reply here, then I may not see it.) -- Toby Bartels 19:14, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

After viewing the page history of Jesus Christ, I noticed that you made many minor edits during the course of a short time, leaving the history log flooded. Here at Wikipedia, we attempt to track and review each and every contribution, especially the articles in feverish dispute, so as to ensure we have credible and neutral encyclopedic material. You're effort and contributions are much appreciated so please understand when I suggest, for future edits, to modify an article intently in fewer edits. Take care. Usedbook 11:49, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Chris, you seem to be turning the Dolphin brain page into a page about the cognition, behavior, and training of dolphins. If you want to discuss these things -- which are tangental to the discussion of the dolphin brain -- perhaps you could do so on a Dolphin cognition, behavior, and training page? orthogonal 18:42, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dolphin Brain/Dolphin intelligence

The article is a redirect from Dolphin intelligence. So it is therefore about both. I would be fine about moving it all to a dolphin intelligence page of its own, and restoring the shell you created about dolphin brain, i.e. splitting the pages. It is not about dolphin, cognition, behaviour and training, if people are looking for a page on dolphins they will mostly likely either type in Dolphin or Dolphin intelligence. :ChrisG

The dolphin brain article started as dolphin intelligence, but was initially filled with extremely speculative stuff (and a copyright violation besides, as was found out later); people the tried to make it a little more encyclopedic, and in the process the page was moved to its current title, leaving the redirect behind. So if there is enough information to justify a split, if would be fine to just do it. Kosebamse 19:26, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Okay I'll split it when I next get back on Wikipedia. I think there is enough room on Wikipedia for a dolphin brain and dolphin intelligence page. A good reason to split them. : ChrisG 19:35, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

An issue of etiquette, I think

Chris, welcome to Wikipedia: I know you've been here a few weeks, but I hadn't said it yet. I did want to comment briefly about the edits you've made to Dolphin brain recently. You added quite a bit of material to the article that I myself had written in the proposed article in my namespace (User:Jwrosenzweig/Dolphin intelligence). This being Wikipedia, what I wrote was for public use, so certainly it's not a violation of my rights to move my text into the article (though as it was added by you, the implication is that it was your text -- you made no note in the edit summary indicating it was largely mine). But I feel I need to say that I'm a little taken aback by your doing so with no note to me. A simple "I like what you wrote and am adding some of it to the actual article" posted to my talk page would have wonderful, or even any response to the proposal I posted on Dolphin brain's talk page. I guess the point is I feel as though you took my writing and represented it as your own: I can't imagine you intended this, but it seemed that way, and I thought you should know it. Maybe in the future, should this situation arise, you can place a note in the user's talk page, as I suggested. Thank you. Jwrosenzweig 00:19, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

re: dolphin brain

Doh! I very much apologise for any misconception, I assumed I had acknowledged you in the talk page; but re-reading my entry it is not clear. See section entitled 'Where to go from here.' Also when I added introduction, merged differences from.. and merged brain... I thought it was clear I was using your article when of course it wasn't and isn't. And of course I did much prefer the way you approached the article. I shall rectify said mistake : ChrisG 06:43, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Chris, no worries. I assumed it was one of those cases: thanks for being so quick to let me know. I make similar mistakes often, and I understand. Happy editing, Jwrosenzweig 21:04, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Chris, I appreciate your taking care to paste my signature line to each paragraph of my talk post under dolphin brain, when you interspersed your comments. But I'd appreciate it if you would indent rather than outdent your responses (if you feel that you must interrupt the continuity of my posts with your responses). Outdenting gives the impression that I am responding to you. Even better would be if you posted the entirety of your response after what you are responding to, so that whatever train of thought I was trying to express -- however poorly I may express myself compared to your profundities -- is preserved. orthogonal 07:06, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The reason I outdented my responses, was so my comments matched up with my initial points, which I seem to remember the style guide suggests. However, it doesn't work very well when you intersperse comments I agree. I understand your point about breaking up the flow of your argument; but it is difficult to respond to specific points unless you do so. : ChrisG 08:04, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Chris, you asked for my comment on dolphin intelligence. This is one I had thought of contributing to myself. To make a real job of it you need access to an academic library with a good marine biology section, and the ISI or comparable databases - do you have that?

Looking at it now, it has made huge progress since I last looked at it a few weeks ago, when it was full of daffy New Age type stuff. Some immediate thoughts:

Most of the current article really is about dolphin intelligence, rather than dolphin brain. I think we should split the two apart again. Then all the Jerison stuff, which slows the discourse down horribly, can be shoved over into brain and left to rot there, while we get on with the interesting things (you can tell I came into animal behaviour via psychology not via physiology!).
There's a general need to link the article to general material on animal cognition and animal psychology. The trouble is that wiki is currently very weak in those areas. I could spend weeks just writing articles about basic animal learning topics, and without that context, none of this stuff makes much sense. And beyond that, almost at every point we need links across to similar articles on primates, dogs, parrots, crows, etc - which we don't yet have.
There's a serious problem in just talking about "dolphins". What species? A particular species of dolphin, some dolphins, all dolphins, or all cetaceans? Think about if dolphins were writing an article about "ape intelligence" - it could be just one species that's a real star and the rest are quite ordinary. I think everything should be qualified by species (and there's some infrastructure work to do, making sure we have decent articles on all the species concerned).
I think we could take the fact-dispute header off now. Do you know who put it on, and why? I assume it was because of some of the rubbish that was on there originally, which you and others have pretty much purged. It will always be a controversial subject - so many of the experiments use small sample sizes, and then there are people who desperately want the facts to turn out one way or the other - but I don't think there are now any genuinely disputable assertions in there that aren't disputed internally. What do you think?

I'm not sure this is much help. More power to your elbow in doing what you can, and I'll try to chip in when I get the chance - but I may concentrate on the infrastructure, which fewer people are interested in. seglea 01:19, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort on Crime fiction. I just read the entire article to judge the flow. It seems good. The two articles you added, certainly stand alone quite well. It may just need a little more time to properly "sync" them and regroup all of them at one place, so that the links dont go orphaned.

I shall follow the same methodology for the other sections too. Hope you can drop by once in a while and do your bit (if you dont have time to do the actual editing). chance 15:21, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Just a tip, headers in articles start at level ==, not ===. Thanks :) Dysprosia 00:59, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I've added a bit of white space to both Main Page/Test and Wikipedia:Main Page, they look alright to me now in IE6 with the blue skin. You saw some of the headings cut off by the edges of the boxes, and the text and headings too close in places, right? That was all I noticed, and tried to deal with. So, if you spotted any other problems, do post to the talk pages and say so. :) Cheers, fabiform | talk 03:02, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC).

Hi, I know you have done some work on the Jesus Christ page. I wrote a new paragraph trying to characterize the methods of (secular) historians, but another contributer thinks it is POV and really just a description of higher criticism. I want to be brief,but accurate -- can you check it for me? Thanks, Slrubenstein

Heya Chris, wonderful work on the Dune articles, however I wish you'd return to Chapterhouse Dune and edit your comments regarding the 'final chapter' and see discussion.

I found your contributions to the synopsis' very accurate. Thanks.

Yeago 11:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

re: contributing to articles. For the past few months I've been too busy to contribute to the wikipedia in an active sense, and this looks likely to continue in the near future. I do, however, check the Wikipedia weekly, so I'm still up to date with the progress of Wikipedia and the articles I am interested in. Wikipedia continues to be the most fabulous thing on the internet. ChrisG 11:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've started editing again ChrisG 20:11, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dune %28fan fiction%29

Hi, the page you created at Dune (fan fiction) isn't retrievable. You should retry at Dune (fan fiction). Rick K 23:05, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisG 23:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chapterhouse Dune

Heya Chris, good work keeping up on Chapterhouse Dune. I wonder if it couldn't be broken down into sections? I don't know, think about it; it may make the article more accessible.Yeago 18:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

beta Systemic Bias section

Hi, if you wish to help contribute to a beta version of a Wikipedia page section designed to counter-act Wikipedia's systemic bias, please sign the bottom of this section on the Village pump - Wikipedia:Village_pump#Systemic_bias_in_Wikipedia. If not, no worries.--Xed 04:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Countering systemic bias

I think what you've done is a good start. Is it OK with you if I

mark this as a draft
move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias
edit as I would in any other WikiProject

-- Jmabel 18:20, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly what I was hoping you would do ChrisG 18:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where exactly is the todo list you started? I want to move it to template space so everyone can get at it and can include it in their own User pages, but I gather it was placed out there via some "magic" I'm unfamiliar with. -- Jmabel 18:57, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC) never mind, found it. -- Jmabel 19:21, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I've got a pretty good draft together at Wikipedia:WikiProject countering systemic bias. Not ready for prime time, but you should take a look. By the way, you seem to have redirected your user page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias (similar, but differently capitalized, and it's a blank page). I suspect you didn't mean to do that. -- Jmabel 20:20, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm having some weird problems downloading pictures these days. Is there any chance you could clean up the picture Image:Crossbow diagram.png to get the reference to "CROSSBOW" out of there? -- Jmabel 20:22, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spiders (Arthropod). Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2003

What is the purpose of this article? Rick K 22:09, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with a solution to the problem of footnotes using the existing technology . See here for my proposal:ChrisG 22:11, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excellent work on example 4, i replied on our project's discussion page. I like the idea of having seperate pages for fact checking, esp. since it allows us to have a discussion page for the facts of each article. Perhaps they will combine as a tab ontop so it would be Edit - Talk - Fact - Fact Talk ontop of each article.

What is slowing down the project though is no <<bracket>> system that automatically does the superscripts, quotes the fact below etc. If you know anyone working on MediaWiki code, please get them to implement a fact checking system like the ones we proposed. See you :o) --ShaunMacPherson 12:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Systemic bias dispute

Really glad to see someone else coming to much the same conclusion that I did. I hope that we can patch this together somehow. Alarm 13:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to calm things down. -- Xed 16:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Project Go time :o)

Hello, many people want to move forward with the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check project instead of waiting for 'smart' footnotes to be coded into MediaWiki. The first step is agreeing upon a formatting template used to fact check new articles. Several candidates are up for vote, and everyone is encouraged to vote and/or submit their own proposal. Comments on proposals are also very much welcome.

I also know you were working on your own formatting method, which as I remember had the facts on a seperate page. This is also useful candidate if you want to submit it, or take another proposal and modify it the way you want. Thanks for your interest in our project, I hope you will vote :o). --ShaunMacPherson 10:16, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thank you very much for your work on Economy of Africa, without your improvements I doubt that it would have been chosen by Danny's contest. - SimonP 17:57, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

CSB reminder

If you nominate or vote for an article, this is taken as a commitment to contribute to it This fortnight, the Second Sudanese Civil War is the CSB collaboration of the fortnight.- Xed 08:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bias

I'd like your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Thanks. Chameleon 12:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

Chris, it looks like you removed the discussion about articles on recent events. Did you mean to do that? Maurreen 15:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NGO reports cat

(William M. Connolley 23:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Hi. You've added MWP and LIA in IPCC reports to the (non-existent) NGO reports category. This is probably the wrong cat. The IPCC is possibly technically an NGO but not in the sense usually meant. The correct cat may require some thought: intergovermental organisation reports? Dunno.

Cyrus and the occult

hi ChrisG, I am really not too sure whether you can honestly catagorise Browne's Cyrus as a work of occult it is just an Eng. Lit. Discourse in reality and even if it was should it not be listed under G and not T for The ? regards Norwikian 06:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Category:Dewey Decimal Classification

This lists the top-level categories currently used in Wikipedia. If you add a category to this page, please also add it on Wikipedia:Categorization_projects_(current)#Top-Level.2FTOC_Categories and explain it there. (Category:Categories)

I have added it to the other page as well, following those instructions. However, I have not been able to explain it. Brianjd 12:54, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

ChrisG has now added an explanation. Brianjd 09:04, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Impact of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Indonesia

Hi; nice edits on the article; I started some of the pages on the towns and districts of Aceh.

see: http://www.digitalglobe.com/tsunami_gallery.html. The images labeled "Banda Aceh South Overview" are Gleebruk and there's no Gleebruk page yet; the images labeled "Gleebruk" are of "Gle-Bruk" -- slightly farther south; see full sized: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Aceh_west_tpc_90.jpg

I'll rough-in Gleebruk & ~~Gle-bruk~~, if you like... w/ images.

Davenbelle 21:30, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm running out of things to add. What really worries me is from my memory of travelling in Sumatra and the map of the west coast, there are simply no news reports on a number of the smaller towns on the west coast. The whole thing needs a proper copyedit; but I think thats for another day. :ChrisG 21:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll add a Gleebruk page w/ images (it'll be later today); upon a closer look I see that all of the new images at digitalglobe are Gleebruk; none of the other Gle-Bruk... If I get a chance, I'll try and work on the Impact page, too.

Davenbelle 21:40, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Gleebruk page exists now; not much copy yet... I may read some news latter on and see what I can find. I loaded the images on "the commons", which I hadn't been to before (I'm new here). My mom lives on Bali and I'll be visiting there this summer. She's helping a local aid group.

Davenbelle 03:39, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

p.s.
http://unosat.web.cern.ch/unosat/asp/charter.asp?id=55
http://www.news.navy.mil/view_photos.asp

Tsunami articles

I am currently in Bangkok and am making some updates to the Impact on Thailand article. Adam 11:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Signpost

I'm glad to hear you like it. If you have anything to write that you would like to contribute, let me know what you're doing and I'll include it in the next issue. That will also help coordinate things to avoid overlap. (Oh, and I'm happy to give out assignments for anyone who wants to write but doesn't have a topic.) --Michael Snow 21:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikicite project page

here

NLP external link spamming by anons

I noticed that you have recently been contributing to NLP and other psychology-related articles. I put speedy deletes on a bunch of articles today that were just external links to nlpschedule.com. Those external links (likely self-promotion) were added to a lot of existing articles recently, but I don't have the subject knowledge to judge whether they should remain or be removed. I saw that you reverted those same links recently on another article, and have contributed to some of these articles. Would you be willing to take take a look at them to see if they are appropriate? The list of articles is on the discussion page for NLP map and also for the Talk pages for User:63.199.31.178 and User:69.109.178.79, the two recent spammers. Thank you.

--JimCollaborator 21:25, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Accident at WP:FAC

There was an editing accident (probably MySQL error or cut-n-paste error) on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates that resulting in the page contents being duplicated. A number of edits had occurred by the time it was noticed, but I tried to preserve everything while removing duplicate material. Just in case, mosey on over and check if your vote stuck. If you have any questions, respond on my talk page. Thanks!

-- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 20:51, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

Limitedgeographicscope on TfD

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Limitedgeographicscope is on TfD. I saw your name in the edit history so I figured you might want to know about it. — mark ✎ 10:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Dead links

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Noticed a couple of links on your user page have "died".

Losing our best contributors
The Months Later Effect

Hope you can fix them. --Tregonsee 10:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 19:02 (UTC)