User talk:Cla68

This user demands flagged revisions NOW.

User:Cla68/Article draft work page

Word for the week of 4 Dec 09: Aphotic Points: Use the word in an article- 5 points, in an article talk page- 2 points, in a discussion in admin space like ANI or a user talk page- 1 point.

Tally: Cla68- 1 [1]

Looking for sources

I was thinking of expanding the article on the US Navy fleet oiler USS Neosho (AO-23), perhaps bringing it up to FA-standard if I can find enough information. I haven't worked on an article involving an auxiliary ship of the US Navy before. Would you know of any book titles or other sources of information that I might look for which might have information on this ship's history? Cla68 (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No Big Book of Navy Auxiliaries that I know of, but here are some suggestions for research angles:

• Obviously from the article, the DANFS entry has been used, but often I've found that other ships' DANFS entries can sometimes have other useful information, too. The USN Historical Center (I can't ever remember what their new name is) will sometimes have extra things beyond DANFS, too. (Google search.)
• the HyperWar site at ibiblio.org often has an assortment of primary and secondary sources for WWII topics. A google search turns up Neosho's action report from her sinking, and from the Pearl Harbor attack
• I'd also suggest books on the Pearl Harbor attack and the Battle of Coral Sea, too. A Google Books search for Coral Sea turns up several that look promising.
• Newspaper searches for the building, launching, commissioning timeframe might be helpful, too. Also, according the GlobalSecurity.org, Neosho was the world's largest oil tanker at the time of her launch.

Good luck on the research and writing. I'll be happy to answer any other questions. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's very helpful thankyou. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Making difficult edits

I recently stumbled upon your guide to writing history articles and found it helpful, so kudos there. But one thing stuck out - choosing a non-controversial subject, where you say if you can find an article that has been left alone for some time. I would argue that it benefits the project more if users do take on highly visible topics and thoroughly research them to find the "truth" (quotes because it's a relative term on Wikipedia as we all know). Not in the bang-your-head-against-the-wall Israeli-Palestinian sense maybe, but if there's going to be a debate, I'd much rather have someone citing five different book sources than relying on "I've always heard..." and similar arguments. You're tagged as willing and able to make difficult edits, so I figured it was food for thought. Again, very informative guide. :) Recognizance (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason I say that is if you want to take the article to FA. You're right that if we're serious about building Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, that we should tackle important, controversial subjects and fix them. If you want to, however, take an article to FA within a reasonable amount of time, it's easier, in my opinion, to avoid articles that are under the protection of POV-pushing editors with an agenda. I guess you could call it the "low-hanging fruit" analogy. Sure, a controversial article might require better sourcing to resolve the associated editing controversies, but the fairly rigorous FA review process should ensure that most, if not all, of FA articles are adequately sourced. Thank you for the kind words on the guide. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Very good point about time. And on second thought, it probably is better to steer new users away from wiki drama that could scare them off. By the way, you might mention library exchanges and similar programs in addition to overseas booksellers. That's how I plan to get ahold of this book, which I have no intention of paying for. Recognizance (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ton That Dinh

About the NYT article that you mentioned, can you email the contents to me, I can only see the start of it. Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that that article has since been moved behind the pay wall of the NYTimes. One way to obtain it would be to ask someone with LexisNexus access to email a copy of the text to you. I don't have that access, but most of the participants at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law have access because they use that tool for legal research. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Leave my pages alone

Leave my pages alone [2]. You are not welcome William M. Connolley (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Japanese ship names

Cla, I don't know if your interests extend this far, but a question involving naming conventions for IJN ships has arisen at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amagi class battlecruiser/archive1. If you can shed any light on the area please take a look. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just coming to ask you the same thing. Appreciate if you could poke your nose in there; even if all you have to offer is OR, it has to be better than my OR :) Maralia (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you guys caught me on the weekend when it's hard for me to get on the computer for more than a few minutes at a time. I'll address this as soon as I'm confident of enough time to give it adequate attention. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've answered. It appears that the battlecruiser was named after a town and the heavy cruiser after a mountain, but I'm still trying to confirm which was which. Cla68 (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. Kablammo (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Heya again Cla, what page does Lacroix say that on? Thanks :) —Ed (talk • contribs) 03:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Here is some advice on preparing advice on preparing a history article for Featured Article: make sure you work in the correct namespace. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 13:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What did I do wrong? Cla68 (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Cla68. You have new messages at Urashimataro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Using newspapers

Newspapers are notoriously unreliable when they report on science. Even the best quality newspapers make big errors regularly. Then, if we have a wiki article that focusses on some scientific topic, it would be difficult to use a newspaper story as a source, even if for that particular case the story seems to be ok. Because you could not do that as a rule. Rather, you would have to make a judgement on a case by case basis. But then that judgement would be Original Research.

At the discussion on the RS board, I linked to an old discusssion on the Special Relativity talk page where I also noted the tension between letting not so reliable sources in and the policy against OR. Therefore it is better to only allow high quality peer reviewed journals to be used as sources. Now, if a statement can be sourced from a peer reviewed source and there also exists a well written newspaper article that makes the same statement, you could decide to also give a citation to the newspaper article. Count Iblis (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That might actually be true about newspapers. The fact is, however, that WP's current RS policy is very clear, even mentioning the NYTimes by name, that major newspapers are reliable sources and are allowed, even encouraged. The policy does not prohibit the use of newspapers in science or any other article, except maybe BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki policy making is driven mainly by what goes on in the politics pages. Editors on science pages have to use slightly different rules, otherwise they could find themselves in deep trouble. This is another dispute I was involved in. Clearly, simply sticking to the existing wiki rules would not always work for certain science articles (although most of the time there would be no problems). So, in the cases where there would be problems one would be justified to invoke WP:IAR. Count Iblis (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific standards is generally what we follow on scientific articles. Even major newspapers often make mistakes about science. I see no problem with this NYT article, but it's a slippery slope to the less accurate and/or more POV-ey articles. If you Google Scholar around for a paper written by the people that they mention about the temperature plateau, I'd happily send it to you and reinsert the same material with that as a RS. This current discussion has actually motivated me to try to make more formal standards for scientific articles, so I might be following up on that in ... oh, a month, after things cool down at work ;). Awickert (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

Heya Cla, you're my go-to guy on anything Japan-related now I think. ;-) Would you be able to/know anything that could help resolve the image issues (see here) raised at 's FAC? Thanks so much, —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a comment at Elcobbola's talk page and added more info to the image files. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan (2nd nomination)‎

Just a note to say I appreciated your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan (2nd nomination)‎. The irony is that I am quite ambivalent about LaRouche, but I strongly oppose what I see as the abuse of process that has frequently been employed as a tactic by the team that controls the LaRouche articles. So, I open my mouth (figuratively speaking) and for my troubles I get branded a LaRouchie. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche isn't, unfortunately, the only topic in that situation. Cla68 (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Beeb

Re Isn't the BBC considered reliable? Quarstion (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC) I would think it would be, but you might be surprised with the "regulars" with this article. Cla68 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC) - no, the Beeb isn't a WP:RS for science. [3] is an obvious counter-example William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The BBC, NYTimes, and any other major media outlets reporting that climate change is not following the IPCC's predictions is significant. Those outlets synthesize the various reports from "scientific" organizations. Cla68 (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes they do but in general they don't: they do whatever they think their readers will want to hear, which results in the sensationalization of everything. For controversial articles scientific papers must be the standard. Otherwise, I predict that the GW article will become a feces-flinging-fiasco between Greenpeace and Rush Limbaugh (as pretty much any public discussion on the topic is). I imagine that with your POV, you wouldn't want a million greenies shoving the "global warming = end of the world" newspaper articles down your throat (and neither do William or I or most of the other regulars). With the scientific paper restriction, we can make the article much more accurate and avoid such issues. As I mentioned above, I will gladly send you scientific articles that you find if you want to look them over. Oftentimes, newspapers will reference press releases, which will in turn will reference the actual articles (and there is often quite a bit of change in the translation), so this could be a way to track down the original science of what you're looking for. Though not a climate scientist myself, I'm willing to lend a hand in the deciphering of said articles. Awickert (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[copied/pasted from Awickert's talk by Awickert] I appreciate your offer to help. It's just that a blanket ban on newspapers is not only against Wikipedia policy, but also counerproductive. Mass media often sythesizes scientific opinion. This is important for us becuase we're, supposedly, not allowed to to synthesize sources ourselves. Cla68 (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that it is not against Wikipedia policy, especially when there are better sources available and newspapers actually do a poor job on GW IMO (anything that says "warming" tends to mean distaster; anything that says "global warming is complicated" tends to mean that it's a lie). I don't know if there is official policy or has been an RfC on this, but this is standard practice in scientific articles and written down in not-quite-official policy in a few places. If there isn't anything, I would welcome your opening of an RfC to create some policy. In any case, what the scientific article limitation does is hold the GW article to the standard that scientific papers are held to. There are indeed good and bad newspaper articles, but selectively choosing them is difficult and may be WP:SYN in itself! There are things called "review papers" which are syntheses of the scientific literature and may be helpful. Also, scientific sources can be used in tandem (e.g., "A et al. say Y but B and C say X and Z") without being WP:SYN. I will see what I can find about warming in the 2000's. Awickert (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I've given it a good look and can't find much of anything. Maybe you have another talk page stalker who can explain why this is the case. At the very least, newspaper articles would be appropriate for the global warming controversy page (indicating that public opinion is swaying due to recent temperature variability). Awickert (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Kongo Class

Hey, Cla68, I'm in the middle of a rewrite of Kongo class battlecruiser, with my sandbox located here. I've found resources for just about everything (design, each ship, armament, propulsion) but I've found next to nothing on the armour specifications of the class. All I have is thicknesses. Would you happen to have any information on the composition of the armour of the Kongo class? Cam ^(Chat) 20:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Cam, I placed some more information on User talk:Climie.ca/Sandbox/Kongo-class. Kablammo (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Australian forces

Uhm, yeah, I agree. Thanks for the correction. --Sageo (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Opine for Fg2

You notified the Signpost tiproom of Fg2's death. Several editors have decided to collaborate to get one of his favorite articles to FA status. Would you care to opine on which article we should select here? Thanks. - Draeco (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Cactus Air Force

There has been a series of edits to this article by an IP editor. Most seem simply matters of preferences; I doubt there was any improvement, and some changes were made to cited text, which always raises red flags. I have done some cleanup but it may have been simpler to revert, as was done with respect to the same editor's wholesale changes on two other articles (once by me, and one by another editor). When you have time, please take a look to see if the changes should be kept or reverted. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I'm not sure when I'll be back. If you need any information on something, please email me. Cla68 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck until whenever you get back! I'm sure I'll be emailing you soon. ;-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm more or less back now, although my participation may be more limited than before. Cla68 (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Japanese carrier images redux

Heya again Cla. I know that you said "[t]he publishing date of the pictures in the book by the Kure Maritime Museum, (edited by Kazushige Todaka), Japanese Naval Warship Photo Album: Aircraft carrier and Seaplane carrier, is April 23, 1949"[4], but it appears that the book was published in 2005, not 1949. Did the book state that the images were first published then? —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've provided further comment on Commons and will check the FAC discussion again to see if progress is being made. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help Cla! :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Morotai‎

Hi Cla, if you have time, would you be able to have a look at the Battle of Morotai‎ article and let me know if you have any suggestions on how it could be further improved (or just add them yourself, of course!). I'm thinking of nominating this for FA status this weekend. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I nominated an article for FAC, but from what I've observed lately many of the reviewers have really been focusing on minutiae, especially concerning images. I went through the images and tried to make the sourcing more clear on each image's Commons pages. I see that you already have the alt text done, so that should take care of that. I checked the footnotes and refs to make sure they were properly formatted and didn't see anything out of place. So, I think as far as the MoS is concerned, it's good to go. Prose-wise, I think it's excellent but I'm often surprised by what the reviewers come up with. Good luck! Cla68 (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy (late) birthday!

[5] :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, same here! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Belated Returns of the Day! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

• ...parties are admonished and instructed to avoid ... Unnecessary interaction between Cla68 and SlimVirgin....

Cla68, I've notice that you've been appearing on pages related to topics in which Slimvirgin is known to have longstanding interests, and where she has already posted. It appears that these are unnecessary interactions. I suggest that you avoid doing so in the future in order to comply with the ArbCom remedy.   Will Beback  talk  06:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern Will. SV has helped me out with an article I'm working on which is on my "to do" list on my userpage, which I thanked her for and she responded graciously. If you feel that me and her aren't getting along, please take it up with ArbCom. In the meantime, DKing has admitted that he is not neutral about LaRouche. You say that he hasn't violated NPOV with article edits, which I'm sure is debatable. Anyway, I believe NPOV also applies to talk page comments. Although we traditionally give a little more leeway on article talk pages, if you read Mr. King's comments on the LaRouche talk pages, I believe that it is clear that Mr. King is following an anti-LaRouche agenda. Therefore, if Mr. King continues the same behavior, I'm going to ask for a formal topic ban at ArbCom enforcement. As an admin, I assume you're concerned about violations of our core policies and will help out with the request? Cla68 (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you see anything wrong with the changes that Dking has made to the article in the past year? You haven't said so. As for the ArbCom remedy, you can ask for it to be repealed if you think it's no longer necessary. While it's active it'd be best if you followed it.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it, and BLP applies to talk page discussion also. Remember, Chip Berlet was blocked for anti-LaRouche talk page comments. Cla68 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And you're interested in this topic because?   Will Beback  talk  07:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't I tell you by email just a few months ago? Well, if you want to pretend like that conversation didn't happen, I'm involved for the same reason I become interested in Global warming, Intelligent design, Gary Weiss, and Prem Rawat, because Wikipedia policies are or were being violated, in this case by DKing. Please assist SV in resolving the problem. Cla68 (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your first point - there are so many topics where policies are being violated that picking one or another usually involves more than just the presence of a dispute. If you're looking for problems to fix I can make some suggestions. Regarding your second point - believe me, I'm working on it!   Will Beback  talk  08:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there really any topics in which one editor's involvement is so obviously a problem? I mean, DKing actually links to his anti-LaRouche website right at the top of his userpage! Frankly, I'm surprised that he hasn't been told like, three years ago, to step off of the LaRouche articles. If you're working on it, then I hope that means that this particular problem is coming to an end. Cla68 (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There have even been members of the movement who've been editing the topic, believe it or not. It's amazing who they let in here. The great Yogi Berra once said of a restaurant - "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."   Will Beback  talk  18:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

WT:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I know it's been a while.

I know it no longer matters and that it has been such a "long" time since this happened. But I just wanted to add that I agree to an extent. I do believe that some admins don't care about the words that they use, but the fact is that a lot of editors "look up" to them as people who should know what to do on this project. Using the wrong words may discourage editors from editing. And last time I checked this was a project where ANYONE can come and gather with other editors to build this project. But I think that desysoping would only depend on the case. I know that is why you say "may" be desysoped, but in most cases it wouldn't be fit. Cases where it would be fit would be situations/cases where admin x has repeatedly done this and doesn't intend to change their ways or even be careful about how they approach things. But anyways, I'm positive this doesn't matter a whole lot; just wanted to say that I agree. ⊥m93 ^talk. 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I think that sometimes there are cases of admin edit summaries or other commments that are so completely uncalled for that immediate suspension of admin privileges may be appropriate. We need to make sure that our admins understand that they are, as you say, examples for the rest of us. Cla68 (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo's talk page

I have a quick question for you. How did you happen to find Kintetsubuffalo's talk page and have your attention drawn towards my edits? I was a little confused seeing that he is in Japan, and I have had two other editors who are located in Japan revert me. From checking the edit history, it seems as if that is the only time you have edited that talk page. Is there some messaging system that Japanese editors are using to contact eachother? I know that one of the editors involved (who I will not mention) is quite keen on contacting other editors in Japan in order to gain support for certain edits - is that the case with my edits? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Arrow (missile) A-class review

Care to reconsider? Flayer (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppets

I looked at recent postings on Wikipedia Review made by you and HK. I categorically deny that I am using any sock puppet on Wikipedia; I post under my own name. "LaRouche planet" is almost certainly just that--a person from the LaRouche Planet website. I am not one of the people responsible for that site and would not presume to use its name, although I certainly support their efforts to expose LaRouche's anti-Semitism and cultism.--Dking (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe you. Cla68 (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for K-ASROC

An article that you have been involved in editing, K-ASROC, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 4wajzkd02 (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC) --4wajzkd02 (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Land bridge

Thanks for taking this on. I don't have any sources for this, but I think the term "land bridge" referring to intermodal transport originates from the use of North American railroads as an alternate to the Panama Canal for Asia-Europe freight. Essentially it was a "bridge" between the oceans over land. The Eurasian Land Bridge appears to be a corruption of the term; it would more properly be called a Eurasian transcontinental railway. --NE2 18:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll try to get the article started this week sometime. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've started working on the article here in userspace. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is done and posted. Please see here for a list of items the article is lacking. Cla68 (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your response to GQ 2

Hi Cla

I was disappointed at the ... non-response, as it were, to the question:

(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. (Tony1)

   A: I hope that my answers to the questions on this page will provide sufficient evidence of this ability. 

With your track-record in FAs and MilHist, not to mention other forums, you are ideally placed to link or diff to a few examples of what you consider your best writing and/or editing of pre-existing prose. An additional advantage (over some of the other candidates) would be diffs of posts that show you to write well in heated exchages, trouble-shoot on talk pages, playing a cooling-down/mediating role with the appropriate use of language; or of editing policy text and/or proposal text. Tony (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

uContribs - request for scrutiny

Hi Cla, I'm running my uContribs program for all ACE candidates, you're first in alpha order so I thought I'd invite your scrutiny of User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Cla68 to see if I'm getting anything wrong. When I checked the output, my first thought was that if Battle of the Coral Sea order of battle can have 119 references and 23 sources and still be rated Stub-class, you must have pretty rigorous standards for article quality. :) If you re-rate anything, feel free to update my page too. Regards! Franamax (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I upgraded a few of the stubs to start, including Battle of the Coral Sea order of battle, Maccabiah bridge collapse, Operation RY, Invasion of Lae-Salamaua, and Air Raid on Bari. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I, er, might have been, *cough*, a little, um, overzealous in respect of your candidacy. Sorry!

I have been reviewing various editors ACE2009 opinion pages and have been rather indelicate in my commentary regarding a couple of people's criteria of not supporting anyone who is not an admin. I specifically noted your unfortunate experience in RfA, and was unequivocal in stating my opinion why you might be an exception to the rule/rationale provided in those opinions. This was done entirely on my own initiative, and I am writing here to in an effort to recognise that only I should bear any untoward consequences for these actions and have this on record so that you or any reader should be aware that you are an innocent party to my partisan editing.
Sorry for any potential difficulty I may have caused, and I hope you have some better endorsements of your candidacy than that which I have provided. Mark. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't read what you said to Z-Man because he admin deleted it, and as has been pointed out, I'm not an admin. I don't have any problem with what you said to the other editor. I appreciate the support. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification

You may wish to note the following comment: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Vote/Cla68#False statements by candidate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've commented there. I really think that you could have brought your grievances here prior to going site-wide... it looks to me like Cla just made a mistake with his facts... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sam took it up with me by email first, so he didn't do anything wrong, at least as far as trying to clear it up privately first. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've responded. Cla68 (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Eurasian Land Bridge

Hello! Your submission of Eurasian Land Bridge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Nick Ottery (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

All cleared up now - see your nomination's entry on the DYK page. I was, it turns out, looking at completely the wrong section for the hook! Your reply though cleared up the matter and I've approved it for DYK. Thanks! Nick Ottery (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Link Check

I was looking at the red link in the Eurasian Land Bridge article for the Beijiang Railway. Google wasn't being very helpful so I went to some of the article sources. In particular figure 1 on page 47 of this indicates that the Beijiang Line is simply the northern branch of the Lanxin railway. That article contains a section on the northern branch so I've piped the link to Lanxin railway#The northern branch in the Eurasian LB article. Could you give this a quick sense check please? Nick Ottery (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices interview

Hi... since you're running for the ArbCom, I'd like to interview you for the Wikivoices podcast series. If you have Skype, it will be easy to do; otherwise, something might be arranged (like my actually paying to connect Skype to non-Internet phones). Let me know if you're interested. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I know the time difference can be a problem, but if you e-mail me a phone number and what times are good to call, I might manage to do an interview anyway. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Voting has started... are you going to be able to do the interview? *Dan T.* (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I replied to your latest message on my talk page... I hate conversations split between two pages because everybody replies to the other's page... almost as silly as top-posted e-mail. *Dan T.* (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I can try the interview now if you're up to it... I'm just barely waking up and it's late at night for you, but maybe it can manage to work out if I grab a cup of coffee first... *Dan T.* (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the interview... it's up now. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST

Great idea! I'm a WWII buff. How did you know I have several shelves of WWII books? Thanks very much. MajorStovall (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll start digging into my pile of books. Thanks. MajorStovall (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

Still remains - my #5. No hurry, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that you had added another question. I've responded. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Register article on [Mike Godwin] and David Gerard

Still think you did the right thing? Cla68 (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"Please communicate to all involved my strong personal and professional preference that they reconsider this decision." Sounds to me like you were implying that you were acting in your formal capacity as the Foundation's attorney. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely think I did the right thing. What makes you think I should believe otherwise? Cade deliberately omits the messages in which I said later that I was expressly speaking for myself rather than as a function of my position. The reason he does this is that he is inherently dishonest. MikeGodwin (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You know how important appearances are. Why didn't David Gerard simply communicate his opinion and demand directly to the ArbCom? Why did he get a lawyer to do it for him? You don't think that choosing you over anyone else sends some kind of message? Imagine how it feels to be ArbCom and to get an email from the Foundation's attorney telling them, using legal terminology, that they screwed-up, in spite of the fact that you tried to make it look like it was just a personal request? Furthermore, if you weren't willing to be involved in your official capacity, then if it comes out in public about what was going on, as happened here, it looks like back-room dealing using an unofficial "heavy", videlicet, you, doesn't it? Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

David Gerard did not get a lawyer to do anything for him. You need to get your facts straight. I spoke out about the issue on my own behalf, based on my own perceptions. The very fact that you think David got me to represent him shows you don't know what you're talking about.MikeGodwin (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the ArbCom Noticeboard: "The Arbitration Committee has...suppressed the motion in an accord between the subject and the Arbitration Committee (brokered by Mike Godwin)." On your own, you contacted both David Gerard and the ArbCom and offered to broker an accord? Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That is in fact what happened. I raised my concerns on the Functionaries list, and after I voiced them, it was suggested that I mediate the dispute and try to come up with a resolution of it. MikeGodwin (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Which, based upon your leaked comments in regard to DG hardly make you the best choice as an honest and independent broker. Minkythecat (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Does he really?

On the private mailing list, Godwin repeatedly says that the views he expressed about the Gerard situation are personal - that they are not delivered in his capacity as Wikimedia general counsel:

WMF isn't talking to you here...For future reference, when I speak as an official of the Foundation to represent Foundation policy, I sign my full name and include my position on Foundation staff. When I speak as my own self - as a lawyer with a couple of decades of experience at free-speech law and the law of online communities, I sign as

--Mike

Minkythecat (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And indeed, isn't there a delicious irony that a WMF lawyer, posting here, having given his view on the nature of the comments Arbcom made re: the DG case, then makes this bold claim against Cade Metz. Physician, heal thyself? I mean, given the nature of your advice to Arbcom re: being able to defend comments in court, just seems a bit odd you'd make such a bold statemnet on this user talk page. Minkythecat (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he may have been right to let the ArbCom know that they had not used proper wording for the announcement. The problem is, that based on past experience, any involvement by WMF staff in En.Wikipedia affairs looks like back-room meddling. But, he did come across as acting in a semi-official capacity. I agree that it would have been better for him to have acted either in a completely official role, or else made more effort to show that he was giving advice as just another interested party. Cla68 (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's a wording issue, change the wording, oversight the offending version. Fine. Is that what really happened? Minkythecat (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Per your WR post, do you want me to nom you for adminship? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Thank you for offering. I'm not sure if it should be done this month, however. Perhaps after the elections are over? Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I do think after the elections would be better, but I'm happy to nom. If I forget in the holiday rush, would you please ping me? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Formatting at RFC for Eurasian Land Bridge

Hi Cla68, I hope you are doing well. I acknowledge that you are indeed making some very good points at the RFC for Eurasian Land Bridge. But can you please keep this formatting during the RFC? I think it will really help to segment out the various comments. I think if we can keep discussion based on a dialogue of determining "what the sources say", we can all work to make sure the RFC does not degenerate. Thus the reasoning for avoiding threaded discussions (except for that bottom section). Sound good? :) Cirt (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen a content RfC done this way but so far it seems ok. Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay great! I started a new section at the bottom of the talk page to analyze the sources. I personally have not researched the topic (yet) which is why my RFC comment asked that question. Could you perhaps help by posting a source analysis with relevant quoted text in that subsection? That way, we can try to discuss and determine proportional weighting. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How did you know about this RfC, by the way? Cla68 (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Responded at my talk page. Btw, I happen to highly respect both you and SlimVirgin (talk · contribs). And I especially appreciate your WP:FA contributions to the project. That's why I hope the RFC can stay amicable. :) Cirt (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea I will try to do my best to keep things congenial, if possible. :( Cirt (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Notifying you of this request. SlimVirgin 09:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Eurasian Land Bridge

I was rather tempted to just add a reference to some world atlas, but I know full well that that would be too flippant: there are plenty of railways that every atlas shows, but which have in reality been torn down decades ago. (E.g., Newfoundland Railway). So I actually looked up sources for each link that affirm its existence and say something positive about it. Which, of course, made the text rather longer...

Also, Tsuji's paper I have added as a reference has a fair amount of statistics (e.g., on the historical use of the Trans-Siberian for the shipment of containers from Japan to Europe). Feel free to mine that!

I wish I had time to draw a decent SVG map.... Vmenkov (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Xiangtan vs. LaRouche: I think that's exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia: a dozen people spent hours discussing whether a particular pundit/celebrity's opinion should be mentioned in the article. No one apparently took the trouble to read the PDF report at the http://www.transeurasialogistics.de/ - the site of the company that actually has run China-to-Germany services lately that would answer quite a few questions, viz:

• how much service is run (apparently, not too much: they mention "company trains", but only mentioned one customer, Fujitsu/Siemens, who shipped something in Sep 2008 from Xiangtan, Hunan, to Hamburg; "public trains" introduction has been delayed)
• cost/timing issues (5 times as expensive as sea freight, but twice as fast, on their route)
• maps
• gauge breaks (pictures show that they move containers from Chinese trains to Russian ones with cranes)
• and a few other tidbits

Similarly, Helseth's thesis in its "Literature" section has a link to Hisako Tsuji's paper with a wealth of data about container shipping from Russia's Pacific ports to Western Europe; and another Tsuji's paper with more data is now linked into our article directly.

Thinking more about the history of "land-bridge-ish" services, I seem to recall reading that Soviets sent shipments to North Vietnam by train via China, during the Civil War in that country in the 1960s, and I remember reading them complaining about the Chinese side - busy with their Cultural Revolution at the time, and being not too friendly to the Soviet Revisionists - being not too efficient with handling this kind of transit freight. The Vietnamese supposedly even make a line from Hanoi to Chinese border dual-gauge, to receive supplies from (and via) China easier. It would be interesting to look that stuff up, but it's not really all that germane to the current article; would be more suitable for the "logistic" section in the Vietnamese Civil War article, or for Transport in Vietnam, I reckon. Vmenkov (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

B-class article

Attack on Pearl Harbor. I don't have the history books in hand, but I can do some copy editing. Are you game? Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cla, I will help with this as well if you decide to do it. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. This really is an important article, so perhaps I should put it high on the "to do" list. Cla68 (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

BAMbenek sources

Please paste the list of all 60 reliable sources here. I will do the rest.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship?

Please see this discussion. I've recommended you as a mentor. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but you are too kind. I would like to see you more involved in the discussion. Our views on the subject may differ greatly, but I think you understand how this place works, and it would be good to see you on the talk page, either playing devil's advocate or helping both sides reach an agreement. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The suggested outline looks fantastic, but I think we need help with the evidence and rebuttal section. That's going to be difficult to do. The way I would do it is to use prose paragraphs as much as possible (without headings or indications of "evidence" and "rebuttal") as this would prohibit editors from attempting to argue one position against the other and force them to write a more objective, integrated description of the evidence. It's going to be tough for some editors to grasp this, but I see what you are trying to do and I support it. We really need guidance with writing this section, so if you could point us to any good FA examples or any other sources in addition to AP, that would be most helpful. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

clarification to avoid clutter

At this talk page, you have indented your reply to address my input re: the image, when it doesn't actually appear to address (directly or tangentially) my point at all. Since you have made it clear you're replying to me, I wanted to ask for clarification here instead of cluttering that discussion. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My fault. I added a clearer comment. Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

BOLD edit FYI

Hi Cla68, I noted you supported, in a constructive manner, my proposal to remove the bogus categorisation at the list of scientists opposing consensus article. Please see [6]. It will doubtlessly be reverted by Connolley, Petersen et al. and if you still support the proposal I'd appreciate your support in pushing this through. That conversation in the talk is a massive waste of WP bandwidth, and my change is, surely, the next best thing to getting the article deleted (which I supported). I believe, this removal of categorisation removes the illusion that these scientists are all divided and squabbling amongst themselves, as the POV pushers want, and I think, after that's gone, there'll be support to actually remove the article. If the article stays, at least the massive BLP & POV problems will be resolved, and we'll have a far more credible list. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Your CRU proposed outline

I've occasionally attempted to think though an outline for an article. A fair amount of work to do a decent job, and it would be disappointing to me if the effort were discarded. You obviously went through some effort to come up with an outline, but as noted, so had Guettarda, and it got lost in the jumble. I'm happy you aren't too wedded to your effort. I am trying to pick up on what you described as one of the positives of your effort - we shall soon see how it goes.--SPhilbrickT 14:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

New account

I left this user a message alerting him to the special probation on these articles. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Congratulations

Thank you! KnightLago (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Due to the holiday season plus Internet connection problems, I may not be very active over the next two to three weeks or so. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just as well you didn't mention this during your candidacy; you may not have polled as well as you did... LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 00:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm back and note to self about current AfD on article I just created

I'm back from wikibreak and leaving a note to self as a reminder of an AfD discussion about an Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co. article I just started. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this. Sorry, I should have notified you about the AfD. I assumed you'd be watching the article, but I should have left you a courtesy note just the same. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuit dates

Can you find a single other date which which includes a settlement date, much less an "intent to sue" date? While it may not be written, there is a policy of including only events that are of above-average significance. There aren't even many Supreme Court cases listed in the events. You don't see minor battles, celebrity weddings, Stanley Cup playoffs, or Brittney Spears' haircut either. For any given date the number of events listed is relatively small. For example, there are only 54 events listed for December 17. Even a key date of a lawsuit is not the 55th most important event on that date, nor the 550th, and I doubt it's even the 5,500th. If every date in every article were included then the lists would be dramatically longer, perhaps too long to use or maintain.   Will Beback  talk  09:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the dates of the events are not notable. Nobody is including them in the "memorable events of the 1990s".

I have been maintaining date and year articles for at least three years now,[7] so I'm familiar with the common practices. Minor items are deleted routinely. Don't take this personally- I've deleted scores of entries from date and year articles.   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the points made above, you should not be scattering wikilinks to the article on this lawsuit until its notability has been determined. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also caution Cla68 not to throw around terms like "vandalism," as he did on my talk page. When text is removed in good faith, it is not vandalism, and in this case it appears that two other editors have reached the same conclusion. If every event in every article warranted a date link, we would have a list of maybe 50,000 items for every date on the calendar. That goes back to the point I raised elsewhere about how we have to use our common sense in making judgments of these kinds. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Cla, I usually delete comments/sections on my talk page, with a kind "thank you". In an attempt to keep the conversation on the page in discussion. This avoids the conversation getting more contentious. Ikip 18:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co., Weiss, and Shepard

Let me know how I can help (finding sources etc.) I have worked with you before, and seen you around, although we have little in common, it is nice to be able to help you rescue this article now. Ikip 18:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I know you're enthusiastic, and there's a history that I truly do not want to know about, but please don't pretend that this is case law. andy (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI: User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke#Robertson_v._McGraw-Hill_Co..2C_Weiss.2C_and_Shepard, User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert#McGraw-Hill_AfD I always like to know when editors are discussing me too :) Ikip 22:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. It's not necessary to respond to that. If I had broken any rules, someone would have already done something about it. I hope GWH chooses to focus his efforts on the other possible Mantanmoreland socks who are hovering around the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• IMHO if you're accused in effect of bringing WP into disrepute it's very odd that you don't feel a need to respond. I would - why don't you? andy (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy, you sure seem to have strong personal feelings about this. Why? Did you notice that the nominator of that AfD was indef blocked? Again, like GWH, I think you're missing the big picture here. Cla68 (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There are two big pictures.

One, in which Gary Weiss appears to not be abiding with his ban, and which others have noticed and acted upon. I have no dispute with the underlying fact(s) or response there - he's banned, he was banned for a very good reason, and if that's not a sock of his I'll be very surprised. If I had noticed that it was an apparent sock earlier I would have done something about it, but I was not paying close attention to those articles these days.

Two, in which you are editing to some degree provocatively on a subject on which you have a conflict of interest, and by a less than entirely AGF interpretation could be seen to have created an attack article and violated WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, ...

In the worst possible interpretation this all would be immediately actionable. I think Weiss is edging towards that interpretation but not clearly there. Several people contacted me out of band about this and are in more moderate, but still concerned stances.

I am not inclined to assume the worst. But there is a problematic aspect. You are not unbiased on threads related to Weiss, and this was at least a problematic article in a bunch of ways, whether you crossed any clear policy lines or not.

Here's what I am leaning towards... I think that it would be best for all concerned if you agreed to stay away from editing Weiss topics. You know you aren't unbiased regarding him, and even if you disclose the COI it still opens up obvious concerns to have you involved in the topic.

I don't see any reason to take it to the extent of talk or wiki space topic bans, but I think that there is too much latent COI, residual bad feeling from the Mantanmoreland case, and risk of BLP problems for article space edits to be a good idea.

The issues concern me enough to talk to people about it and talk to you about it. I am initially concerned enough that taking it to ANI for a community consensus discussion would be on the set of things I would consider, but I think it would be rude to jump straight to that and not bring my concerns here and assume a little good faith. The context and some of the details are disturbing to me, but I think that on review and reflection I just see enough evidence to indicate to me that there's a topic problem, not indications of bad faith.

I hope that the underlying issue - that you and Weiss have a problem with each other - should be evident enough to you that you're willing to admit that and admit that it's a factor in your participation here.

That does not mean that you have necessarily actually violated policy. But the underlying issue is fairly evident.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a little odd, isn't it? It seems to me that, ideally, the people contacting you would instead be commenting on the AfD, or improving the article. They seem to prefer their chances trying to get you to act against Cla68. Still, I'm not sure what the answer is. Part of me thinks that if the lawsuit justifies an article, a random person will start it; it isn't like this article had previously been thwarted via sockpuppetry or other inappropriate means. I also don't think we should be so "creative" in finding ways to prevent someone from manipulating Wikipedia. Yet, the article is now here, at least unless it's deleted in AfD. I would tentatively agree with the suggestion that Cla68 shouldn't create more articles relating to Weiss, since there is a BLP issue with the effect of such articles. I'm less convinced he shouldn't be involved in these articles in any respect. Is this a possibility? For the record I haven't spoken with Cla68 or anyone else about this. Mackan79 (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that all edits I've ever done to any of the NSS-related articles, including the article currently under AfD, were in conformance to the rules. I believe strongly that the article I created recently is an NPOV article, giving both sides of the issue. So is there some contention occurring? Definitely. Do I carry the most blame? I don't think so.

GWH, we could avoid having any battles over NSS by simply not fighting them. As a result, the NSS article would be badly biased, Weiss' bio would read like a promotional press-release, and Patrick Byrne's article would make him look like the epitome of banality and evil. Actually, those articles did used to look like that before some editors jumped in and tried to fix them. Unfortunately, their efforts were often impeded by, in addition to Mantanmoreland's many accounts, misguided admins, who have since, apparently for the most part, realized they were being had and quietly stepped away.

As far as your inquiry to ArbCom, I see that you have received an answer. I believe that they are monitoring the situation and have taken proactive steps to ensure that it doesn't get out of control, at least, with the parties involved that they have some control over. Now, there are a couple of accounts still trying to cause trouble with the AfD process and the NSS topics. I hope that they are earning themselves the same scrutiny from you that I am. Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting and responding both to Mackan79 & Cla68)

I wasn't suggesting a complete topic ban - I specifically mentioned wiki and talk pages as being fine by me. The intent there was to allow some of the oversight you mention Cla68 - if someone appears to be trying to whitewash or blackwash one of those, you'd be free to call them on it or ask for help / independent review.

That you are afraid that you not participating would necessarily lead to that, unfortunately, is moving towards proving my point that you have enough of an axe to grind with Weiss that your COI is problematic.

I believe that for the most part the issue wasn't worth paying attention to / being concerned about until you (on Dec 25th) created that article and raised visibility more widely overall. The AFD response shows that a lot of people generally agree that the article is not grossly wrong. But a lot of people are concerned, some enough to recommend deletion, and many of those were not involved with the Mantanmoreland case in any way.

I think you're mentally trying to spin this into an "us vs them" of Weiss supporters vs you and your supporters. That is absolutely not where I'm coming from here. I haven't had a bit of sympathy for him since the time shift evidence came out in the arbcom case, regarding his travel to India for his wedding. He was gaming the system and lying to us (and, specifically included in "us", me particularly), for no good reason and with no good excuse, and he has not yet owned up to it or apologized.

I don't want Wikipedia turning into a battleground site going the other direction, either, though. The whole topic largely calmed down since the case closed, which was a good step. But little things here and there pop up on the horizon.

In this particular case, the policy concerns I was listing were not pulled out of thin air. I and others feel that they are descriptively applicable, though I don't think the article raised to the level of seriously abusive. I'm not acting as a banned editor's proxy here - this was raised to my attention by an ex-arbcom member and commented on privately by another, along with other admins, plus the public conversation here. I don't think they were particularly involved in the Mantanmoreland case or prior conflicts with you. I believe that I was asked to look because I'm currently one of the admins willing to take a risk and touch a live wire on-wiki, if there's a potential complex problem.

If another editor, unrelated to the Mantanmoreland case and your history with Weiss, had created the article and made those edits, this would be a different case. But it wasn't a random editor, it was you - and you and he have a history, and it's not good. That inexplicably links any article issues to the question of whether the article was intended as an attack, or slanted by personal feelings.

I'm not going to touch the AFD because it's not necessary. I'm not going to go stomp on Weiss because it's not necessary - he provoked the ire and attention of a wrathful Arbcom and is getting what he deserves for having done so, in violation of the ban. I think he's unlikely to get away with much around here for a while.

I do want to at least get to the point where you understand and acknowledge that your history with Weiss is a conflict of interest issue on articles about or featuring him, and subject to enhanced scrutiny (see WP:COI) and concern. It would defuse this issue if you took the half-step back I asked for - not editing those articles directly anymore, but talk and policy/wiki space pages ok. I think that is a balance that avoids COI concerns of significance but allows for oversight against others with COI doing wrong things unnoticed or unresponded to.

At the very least, you need to be more aware of this, and more open of it (disclosing on article talk page, etc). You may have assumed that everyone knows the history, but not everyone will. Open disclosure matters.

So does self awareness and acknowledgement. Even if consensus ends up with the article's ok and you didn't do anything specifically wrong, you need to edit with the awareness that there's a bias and latent COI there, and be more aware of and open to that being called out by others.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If you said who contacted you, it might be easier to say why they might choose you in particular to contact. I grant your good intentions, but you do have your own history on the topic, you know. The second deletion discussion on Judd Bagley is actually interesting reading, for a little turn-about.[8] Did Sandifer take heat for that? As I recall it was just resolved at AfD. Doesn't mean I agree with what some of them were doing, or that I think this is an especially useful article, or that AfD solves everything. It's hard for me to disagree with Thatcher.[9] And maybe now I'll butt out. Mackan79 (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Weiss and Robertson articles

Note to self: I've added suggested verbiage on the lawsuit topic to the talk pages of Gary Weiss and Julian Robertson. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

TheSmokingGun.com

Greetings, You participated in a previous discussion about TheSmokingGun.com and whether it can be considered a reliable source. I don't feel that a clear consensus was reached and have reopened the discussion here, should you choose to participate. Regardless, have a Happy New Year!--otherlleft 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You have messages at the talk page of Weakopedia, a user who doesn't know how to add talkback templates. Weakopedia (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

No, I just resigned from recent changes patrol, not Wikipedia. Was giving me a headache, and it was like stomping on ants at the beach. Definitely interested in milhist. Thanks, MajorStovall (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

notable info

Re: Gary Weiss. I'd say that we need to give it another day or so to allow editors to comment on the suggested addition about Robertson's lawsuit before adding it to the article. Cla68 (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rocksanddirt"

well, sorta. since the weiss appologists are still protecting his articles, sometimes one does need to push them a bit. Notable information about a notable article he wrote belongs in his biography if we are ever going to pretend that this is an encyclopedia, and not a collection of resume's. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

wholey crap. just saw your note on the talk page. if he would just leave it alone, we could keep it to a reasonable biography of a minor journalist, and no one would care. With this ownwership, he encourages people who don't like him.  :/ --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cla68. You have new messages at DMCer's talk page.
Message added 01:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DMCer™ 01:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with Tosa?

Can you take a look here? Thanks :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

content court of appeals

• One body elected for lengthier terms (one year, though two years would be OK since it's far less stressful than ArbCom)
• That body accepts or rejects appeals — rejecting the overwhelming majority of them (see above about stress). Only truly intractable problems pass the bar; as I said on Lar's talk, Wikipedia actually functions well in the overwhelming majority of cases...
• That body then appoints/requests an ad hoc board of editors to serve as editors in chief. The process may involve community input, but that should be done carefully to avoid drama etc.
• That board stays with the article or suite of articles for an extended time period (six months?), working with editors to improve the text according to WP:5P...
• Decisions binding, unless new data comes out or whatever. A set of guidelines could be drawn up indicating when their decisions could be changed.
• Interested? I am very certainly neither skilled enough nor in possession of enough free time to push the idea.. where?... VP I guess... or wherever. • Ling.Nut 11:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. I have a stack of final exams to grade at the moment. In general, of course I like the idea (since I suggested it). I have very very little faith in the ability of Wikipedia to improve itself systemically. But we can discuss. I will get back to you in a while, perhaps a week or more... thanks! • Ling.Nut 05:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship FAR

I have nominated Iowa class battleship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Content court of appeals

This is very interesting. Have you thought about turning it into an essay? Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You work on it, then... Cla68 can as well if he wants... and I'll chip in later (no serious contribs for at least a week). Thanks! • Ling.Nut 09:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

PS – Try to sneak an absolute ban on "talkback" templates into the fine print, if possible. • Ling.Nut 09:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Ling.Nut's idea is much further developed than mine. If you're [Viriditas] referring to my response on his page, I still have a ways to go in working through it before I come up with some kind of idea that adequately arrives at some kind of truth on this issue. I'll keep working on it, at least in my mind, for awhile. Cla68 (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Still, I found it impressive. Viriditas (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles in the topic area of climate change are under general sanctions due to continued disruptive editing

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Lawrence Solomon, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you already know, and your edits that I have seen appear solid, so just treat this as a formal notification for the sake of the log. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I'll be on the road for the next couple of weeks. I may or may not be looking at Wikipedia during that time. Cla68 (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugo Nespolo and othe careless prods

this was an exceptionally careless BLP prod; even if one cannot understand any Italian, the merest glance at Google News or Books would have shown the great number of good sources. It's a much more valuable service to place prods after at least looking. I apologize for expressing my impatience, but I have spent altogether too much time cleaning up after such as this, and I could do the necessary work much better if those who placed the prods did their share of it. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

actually, your prod on Ruslan Khasbulatov , Yeltsin's successor as Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFR, was even more remarkable. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

or, for that matter, Sture Allén, a member of the Swedish Academy. I see almost all of your prods have been easily sourced by other editors, and you should really have done it yourself. This is the sort of work that harms the encyclopedia. Perhaps it will serve as an example of why drastic action of unsourced BLPs is unsuitable, because removing articles on such people is actively harmful when they can be improved so readily. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas John Baker

Cla68, were you aware that the owner of Metropolis, Mark Devlin, had an axe to grind with baker's mother? Delvin took his battle to wikipedia and was outed on the Baker article and ended up getting permantely kicked off - there are real issues with any infromation that originates from Metropolis (devlin) or factlaundering that resulted from either local papers picking up info from his editorials or possibly from him initiating contact with them. This should all realy be discusses on the baker discussion page before more editing is done with regards to Devlin material

Hi Cla68, thanks for the note on my talk. In reviewing the Baker discussion pages I noticed that you were part of some of the discussion at that time. You may want to look in the discussion archives to refresh your memory as to how things transpired. To address the topic of Metropolis as a RS especially when it comes to the Nicholas Baker article:

1) The Baker article is a BLP, as such the more negative the information becomes the more stringent the requirement for the sources, Where as it might be acceptable to use a local newspaper or free add-supported magazine like Metropolis for a fairly non-contentious issue, that same source should not be used for potentially libelous information.

2)Metropolis (the publication) was actually participating in a controversy, as opposed to only reporting it. The obvious conflict of interest Devlin/Metropolis demonstrated, lack of editorial oversight, and clear attempts of ax-grinding means no, Metropolis is absolutely unsuitable as a reliable source in this instance and quite frankly contaminated beyond redemption - what is needed are actual reliable sources independent of it.

3)I don't think it's notable but, putting aside my personal perspective, after much discussion it was agreed on that the following sentence about Devlin's flip-flop (from support to criticism) was free of BLP issues & fact laundering: "Mark Devlin, who at the time was the publisher of Metropolis, initially supported the Nick Baker campaign but withdrew his support in 2004 and publicly criticized the support group's campaign tactics". This is sourced to the Swindon Advertiser, Gloucestershire Echo & The Citizen.

I'm putting a copy of this message on the Baker discussion page as it would be easier to continue the discussion there as other editors may want to weigh inStatisticalregression (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC note to self

Note to self to remember to follow this content RfC I just started. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been starting to work with ChrisO and Hipocrite on a proposal related to renaming the CRU hacking incident article. Based on your comments at the RfC it seems that you might be willing to sign on to this proposal. We are intending to approach people on their user pages to try and build some momentum and for this proposal and hopefully build a growing set of editors who are willing to accept this as a reasonable compromise and then stand together to defend it. Please stop by and weigh-in with your opinion and feel free to sign on if you are willing to help push this and defend it. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI

I just complained about Tarc at AN/I (WP:ANI#Tarc's ongoing abuse). The least of it was this comment [10] that appears to have been directed at you. It was my 6th example (out of eight). Just FYI. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones (climatologist)

Re: [11] - I think the essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing describes the copyvio argument. I have at present no comment on that or any other issue there, I just noticed copyvio in the recent changes and wanted to glance that way before logging off. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Cla68,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Real Global Warming

Hi there. I see that you added the above book to the see also section of the IPCC page. I was wondering if you had read the book, and if so, if you could lend your voice in support of a reference I want to make re: how the book (in chapter 4, ‘The Hottest Year Ever’) charts thoroughly how the IPCC and the "Hockey Stick" graph were linked. At the moment, there is some resistance from certain editors for including the ref. All will become clear if you go to the discussion page. Best wishes,Jprw (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, I added the link after reading a synopsis of it in a third party source. I'll check out the discussion. Cla68 (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for lending your voice to the debate.Jprw (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Autoblocks

Just letting you know, we have an auto-block finder. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems like whenever someone gets unblocked, it takes awhile for the autoblocks to be manually resolved. It's a step that shouldn't be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

True. I've forgotten to do it myself. There is a link to the tool in the unblock page though. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Booker

Thank you for your encouraging words. Funnily enough I had noticed how calm, reasoned and objective/neutral you yourself came across on those discussion pages -- in stark contrast to others I might mention, and the vehement and repeated flagrant violations of WP:BLP/WP:CIVIL I found very disturbing. I have no particular axe to grind re: Global Warming; the Booker reference seemed to just fit perfectly in that particular sub-section of the IPCC article (extremely well sourced account, etc.). But it feels now as though I am just banging my head against a wall. All the best and keep up the good work, Jprw (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What's you take on the RfC as it stands now?

I have sort of been waiting for the RfC to conclude before bringing our proposal forward so as not to conflate the two but now it seems that it may have been sucked in anyways. I need to make a pass through reading the RfC comments and such to form my own opinion of what consensus, if any, was formed there. Can you summarize the status of the RfC and what, if anything, you feel the results thereof actually are? It seems to have spilled over into a move request and appears to be continuing there.  :) This is certainly a hot topic.

I was considering running a poll among the signatories to determine which variant of the current proposed name would be most preferred (since many of the signatories were lobbying for shorter versions). It may still make sense to do that but I wanted to make sure I understood where the RfC stood first. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cla68. You have new messages at Talk:Lee Jung-Su.
Message added 04:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Airplaneman ^talk 04:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good :). Nice to meet you, Airplaneman ^talk 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hello, Cla68. If you have a moment, could you copyedit the short section named "Controversies" on Tsushima, Nagasaki? I think your help would be greatly appreciated since Arstriker (talk · contribs) is not willing to compromise with me over a frivolous issue regarding fixing the current wrong and grammatically incorrect title, "Dispute[sig] incident". The original title of the section was "Racist attacks" and he altered it to "Protest[sig] of Japanese nationalists". As a compromise, I've suggested him to restore his first altered title "Protest[sig] of Japanese nationalists" instead of the weird current title. I guess a third person who knows Japanese history and culture would be helpful to end the frivolous dispute. Thanks.--Caspian blue 08:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The article has a much better shape now. I highly appreciate your help. If possible, could you also copy-edit the Korean claim section which seems to be more seriously in need of copyediting. Anyway, thanks again. --Caspian blue 17:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I tweaked a little bit since the cited source does not exist, and the mention of Liancourt Rocks without source can give a misimpression over the sovereignty and a POV concern. (that is not your responsibility of course, but the writer)--Caspian blue 23:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Booker again

In our zeal to argue our corner on Wikipedia sometimes we can fail to see fully the implications of counter-arguments. You have several times now dismissed statements about the problems of citing Booker as a scholarly source--in essence that his use of sources has been impeached so many times on this and other issues, and the Press Complaints Commission itself has ruled on this. That he's a partisan for an extreme minority view on this is also well sourced. I think you should address such objections seriously. They're not, as you have claimed several times now, merely the personal opinions of Wikipedians. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 16:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are the sources for your allegations? Again, we don't make these judgements, we allow our readers to look at the sources and decide for themselves on their credibility. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Let an uninvolved admin review the name of the climategate article

Cla68. That was a refreshing breath of air in the article. Personally, I search about once a day for articles on climategate & global warming (it's fun to watch how this thing develops), so I've read a couple of hundred articles on the subject and I'm very well aware of what people call it (both pro and anti) it is highly amusing to watch the editors on the climategate talk pages trying to pretend the media haven't already dicided that the public know this episode by only one name.

And just to put you in the picture, I have twice in the last fortnight written >2000 word reports using the emails to illustrate points and so I've had read up on the background from a variety of source - although I have to admit I didn't even consider reading the wikipedia article - I don't trust an article written by people who don't even recognise the name given to the episode by the public and media.88.110.16.230 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Weir

Could you point me to where "the current wording was agreed to", the current wording (after your reversion) was, as far as I can tell, never stable, and never agreed to. You yourself supported the exact version that you just reverted (see Talk:Johnny Weir/Archive 3#Sexuality verbiage still needs work). Here are some diffs from Feb. 10, Feb. 15, Feb. 16, Feb. 17, and Feb. 18 when the article was fully protected and we were in the early stages of discussion. I don't see anything in that discussion that would indicate firm agreement for the version to which you have reverted. One thing that was agreed to, was that the wording still needed adjustment because it was inaccurate. I've explained all this at Talk:Johnny Weir#Wording adjusted per archived discussion. Wine Guy~Talk 08:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Running

Moving this here for the obvious reasons. I am totally out of shape now and not running at all, but back in the day my wife and I ran together in a couple of marathons. We ran Chicago as a training run one year. My personal best was 3 hours 38 minutes. The others were between 3:45 and 4 hours.

My wife was actually into ultra-marathons for a while. She only ran one, a 50 miler. It was a race called Dances with Dirt and was hosted in Hell, Michigan. I was her support person and moved all her gear from one checkpoint to the next all along the way. It took her about 11 hours total to complete. There were a lot of people doing it, but a marathon was always more than enough for me!

Anyway, good luck. It should be fun no matter what! They always are.  :) (This is a statement that only a distance runner would understand.) --GoRight (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

PA

Thanks for offering to report the PA. The distraction may not be worth it, the reviewing folks aren't likely to act. However, the editor has been warned to avoid PA against me multiple times. If no action now, then I guess there will more to report later. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not the only PA that he's done recently, so that one is the proverbial straw. Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have filed an enforcement request. Cla68 (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)