User talk:Cla68

Harassment

Cla, please stop posting on SV's page, or otherwise harassing or stalking her, or anyone else. Crum375 (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Asking an admin to explain why they made a personal attack against you is considered "harassment"? What a strange Wiki world we live in! But be sure you're not the only one to have been called a "conspiracy theorist" by Slim. See [1] for example. The diff I posted to her talk page, asking for an apology for that and another edit she made implying that I was liar has since been deleted [2] in the "cleaning up" of her talk page. There was no response, or apology either. One can only conclude that here at Wikipedia "some pigs are more equal than others". Unfortunately, I have no advice for you. Only the deepest of sympathies, which I thought I would share. Tiamut^talk 13:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Asking SlimVirgin to be accountable for her actions isn't harrassment. In fact, I have to ask why you feel the need to try to "protect" her from accountability with weak attempts at intimidation? Can she not defend herself? Or, because she has no defense she needs to rely on others who apparently have nothing better to do? Cla68 (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're ongoing stalking of Slim is nullifying all the terrific FA's you have created. Cease and desist from this ongoing disruption please....please get back to article writing, which is by far your forte here and is much appreciated.--MONGO 14:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

By the above-cited standards, aren't Crum and MONGO "harassing" Cla68? Once you define this term so loosely, any attempt at communication, especially in a critical vein, might apply. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of "piling on" to tell a user that they're not to ask what are valid questions of another user, perhaps you could consider how your actions might be considered in the same light? Achromatic (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I should just keep my nose out of it, but an accusation of stalking is a little over the top. It is an emotionally charged word that brings with it ton of creepy suggestions. Maybe there is a better word than stalking to express whatever one is trying to express. Stalking refers to a criminal offense in most areas; it is a bad word to describe the actions of a person who is offended and civilly (if not repeatedly) trying to receive feedback from a person he has a dispute with. daveh4h 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cla68, its like this. Your efforts to help wikipedia are very very appreciated. But everyone is different. Different things upset different people. British and American tastes in which words are fighting words is an example. Using the word "niggardly" around ignorant people is an example. Slimvirgin is an asset to wikipedia just as you are. What upsets her is different than what upsets you. Please accommodate our fellow human beings as much as you can when it comes to their individual sensitivities. Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Asking an admin to explain why they made a personal attack against you is considered "harassment"? What a strange Wiki world we live in! Newbyguesses - Talk 10:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is how the game is played. Provoke a personal attack, then claim a personal attack was made, and when you get enough then you begin an escalation pattern of blocks that make them angry enough to warrant further longer blocks. The first person to claim they were attacked is the winner in this game. Cla68 won. Let it go. Crum375 is playing the "I see your personal attack and I raise you a stalking, your turn" game. He and Slim love these games; they are such fun people. Personally, I find these games lacking in challenge. "The best move is not to play. Care for a nice game of chess?" WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of differing sensibilities, British v. American English, etc., just a familiar move in a game of strategy that Cla68 doesn't need to play. Cla68, you have a wide and well-deserved reputation for (a) prolific and first-rate article content, and (b) scrupulous and courageous fairness regarding these marginal COI/NPOV/clique dramas. And other editors have an equally wide and well-deserved reputation for vulgarly exploiting a politics of victimhood, and using a moral rhetoric (of "harassment," "stalking," and so on) so grossly and irresponsibly inflated as to be meaningless. It's like one of those poignantly devalued currencies where you've got four zeroes on a bill and it's still not enough for a sandwich. No one believes your accusers, Cla68, so don't let 'em rattle your cage.--G-Dett (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's well-spoken comments and advice and they are all well-taken. Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

May I say, Cla68, that myself never having been involved in any of these instances, I have no reason to want to get into a fight with the "big swingers". And I have admiration for the contributions of SlimVirgin, not all of them but much of them. However, the practices of those bullybrigades who conspire to mug the less-protected in dark alleys is deplorable, and they know who they are.

I expect to draw flak for that comment, but it is one thing to voluntarily contribute to Wikipedia, and quite another thing to find oneself endlessly confronted on talkpage after talkpage with this garbage and bullying, which at this time seems to reverbrate from *BADSITES*. I am a minor editor, nil interest in politics, but I dont like walking through spew to get to work. If, somehow, the *BADSITES* war, can be finished with, with all involved parties well and truly injured and retired from the fray, that may be the best possible outcome for WP. I will gladly wear some incidental abuse then (I am bound to anyway, even just for breathing).

These are my personal views, so if I offend anyone here, let me (NBG) know. User:Cla68 had nothing to do with this statement. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology from NBG - With the Arbcom case now openened, I realize that the intemperate language in my above post could be seen as not setting any kind of good example of civility, at a time when AGF and decorum will be of much benefit. I apologise for being het-up at the time of post, and will try to set a better example in future, or not stick my beak in at all.Newbyguesses - Talk 23:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your call for me to recuse ...

I am not going to recuse from the case; long-standing arbcom precedent does not require us to be free of opinions about cases, but rather to recuse if we have an actual conflict of interest. I do not.

As always, I will examine the facts before us neutrally and without prejudice.

As to my opinions about Mr. Bagley - he is not a party to this arbitration in any case, as far as I can tell, so it is not very relevant. Yes, the case involves people with whom he has had long-standing disagreements, but that will not affect my judgment as to those people's actions.

Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree and I repeat my request that you recuse yourself. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Asked here, about the precedent: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision#Procedural question on recusal. Lawrence § t/e 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am eagerly anticipating your evidence

Mantanmoreland's troubling treatment.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that this is the most important section in the case. It's not so surprising when people lie or try to advantage themselves, but we must learn how this was allowed to continue for so long. Cool Hand Luke 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Appears to admin delete previous versions of the article along with the edit history".

These edits were subsequently oversighted. Consequentially, I have no idea what they were. Cool Hand Luke 07:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: Gary Weiss has been oversighted. Talk:Gary Weiss was only admin deleted, by SlimVirgin Five edits are deleted. Just from an IP and reversions. Were adding {{Notable Wikipedian|various sockpuppets|Weiss, Gary}} and comments that "everyone knows Mantanmoreland is Gary Weiss." I have no idea what's missing from Gary Weiss, of course. Cool Hand Luke 08:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I've corrected the points to bring them in line with the facts I'm aware of. I think I wasn't clear enough to begin with.[3] Cool Hand Luke 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Cla68 (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Post to SlimVirgin's talk page

Crum did indeed admin delete SlimVirgin's talk page. However, ElinorD subsequently convinced her to undelete some of the deleted history and divided the history into several archives. Your edit sits deleted at User talk:SlimVirgin/temp. The log looks like this:

• 02:55, 3 June 2007 (diff) . . SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs | block) (3,670 bytes) (archiving)
• 02:53, 3 June 2007 (diff) . . SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs | block) (27,826 bytes) (Reverted edits by Cla68 (talk) to last version by NathanLee)
• 02:52, 3 June 2007 (diff) . . Cla68 (Talk | contribs | block) (28,812 bytes) (comment on removal of RfC notification)

This is what you wrote:

==RfC on my actions==
I notice that you immediately removed my notification of the RfC I opened on myself from WP:ANI. That RfC is an attempt to document what happened and generate discussion among the community so we can hopefully put it in the past. Since administrators enforce policy I thought it was appropriate for them to read the RfC and ask questions or comment on it. As editors I believe we have the right to bring issues to the attention of the admin noticeboard, since it says in the heading for that forum, "any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here." If you feel that invitation doesn't apply to me, I'd like to know why. Also, since you were the initial and primary editor to voice the concerns over my conduct in my RfA, I especially encourage you to ask any questions or comment on the matter in the RfC. CLA 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke 08:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Cla68 (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also note the comment for Crum375's history delete—"trolling." Cool Hand Luke 09:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Tutorial: Getting an article to featured article status

Hello, Cla68. I was asked to write a signpost tutorial about how to get an article to featured article. This is my first draft. It is based on my own page: User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA, which was inspired by your advice as well. If you have time, check the draft, offer any comments you would like, check the prose, and propose me any improvements you regard as useful. Thank you in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way what happened to the MILHIST's advice on writing a FA. I click on the link, but I cannot find it. Did they remove it or am I just fool?!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment on the page's talk page. Great work. I'm not sure what happened to the MILHIST FA advice. Cla68 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Could you explain (if you get time) some things to me about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cla68. Do these processes close, or remain open for ever? There appear to be no posts since 01:53, 11 December 2007 Cla68 @Talk. Is there a "result", or has the "outcome" been satisfactory to you?

Is the Rfc closed, or could posts still be made there? Are you still bothered by the allegations which were made at the RFC, and repeated at your RFA? Was this offer ever made good on? Do not reply if you are too busy with the Arbcom. or other matters, or if you feel that commenting at this time is inappropriate. Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 03:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are good questions and I'll give a full reply within the next couple of days. Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. That RfC is still open as far as I'm concerned. Editors are still free to add (or retract) their endorsements to any of the statements listed there. In fact, once the current, related ArbCom case is closed, I'm going to add a link to it and a brief intro in a section on the RfC's discussion page. As far as I know that offer you mention wasn't made good on.

If you look at the evidence I'm presenting in the related ArbCom case [4], you can see that I am still bothered by what occurred in my RfA. One of the purposes of the RfC was to document what happened as a future reference as well as so that I could learn from the experience and from analysis and comments provided by others. One of things that bothers me the most about the RfA was that an active participant there and in the RfC, an admin, knowingly and mendaciously lied, and has never been held adequately accountable for doing so. Cla68 (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your prompt reply. The question of a "result" is then moot, as the Rfc is still open, and I intend for the record to wait until you or other post there before making a contribution. It seems the purpose of an Rfc is to obtain Outside views; there have been a number of those to date in evidence, so that "outcome" has been achieved, but I cannot see anywhere there where you get answers to what seem reasonable requests to have evidence supplied, or accusations withdrawn. I will be following the Arbcom. case, though unlikey to post there (again;)? Newbyguesses - Talk 10:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments

Regarding your comments on my Talk: page, you say I was "heavily involved at one point in the issue"; can you explain what you mean by that? Also, why would I have special insight into oversight actions, or be able to provide dates and times for them? Finally, based on this statement, is it your position that what people post on off-Wikipedia websites is relevant to Wikipedia? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

On at least one point, I can take a wild stab in the dark: "able to provide dates and times" - "# Jayjg ‎(checkuser, oversight, Administrator)", from Special:Listusers/oversight. Wasn't that much of a stretch, was it? Achromatic (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There are 30 people on that list; I'm not sure why Cla68 specifically approached me, rather than the 29 other names on the list, or suggested I would have special insight in this matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I heard somewhere that you oversighted material from the Gary Weiss article and associated talk page. If you didn't, please say so and I'll retract that "heavily involved" statement. If you weren't the one who did it, could you please identify the oversight editor(s) who did oversight the material? Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting; where did you hear that? Also, you might have missed my earlier question, based on this statement, is it your position that what people post on off-Wikipedia websites is relevant to Wikipedia?" Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you'll answer my question, I'll answer yours. Cla68 (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I asked first, why don't you answer first? Specifically, "based on this statement, is it your position that what people post on off-Wikipedia websites is relevant to Wikipedia?" Then we'll move on to your questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, is it your position that what people post on off-Wikipedia websites is relevant to Wikipedia? User:Dorftroffel 08:52, February 20, 2008

Cla68 is the person who took umbrage based on things posted off-Wikipedia - it is he who needs to answer. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Needs to answer"? You're asking him a question, and it's up to him whether he wants to reply or not. You're not the Holy Inquisition or anything, please don't act like you think you are. Dorftrottel (ask) 18:37, February 29, 2008

I didn't word that well, I meant that the question was only relevant for him. No need to jump down my throat. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

curious sockpuppet

While looking over your evidence, I visited the page of your RfA where I stumbled upon User:Blutacker. I had "flagged" the account, saying "This is the user's sixth edit, and his second outside Daniel Brandt" Since the Brandt article is deleted, only an admin could evaluate those 4 edits. At any rate, it's very clear that the account is a sockpuppet and I tagged the user page with {{Sockunknown}}. I'm not sure if this means anything at all (probably not), but I thought I'd notify you of this find. Blutacker btw is the German name for Akeldama. User:Dorftrottel 06:01, February 18, 2008

I'm not sure what to do about that. The account appears to have stopped editing. I guess a checkuser could be performed, but I don't know who it should be done on. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Same here, just thought it curious enough to drop you a line. User:Dorftrottel 13:42, February 19, 2008

I am rather good at thwacking sock puppets. If you go for RFA again, I will be watching, and this sort of thing won't happen again. Jehochman ^Talk 02:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Cla68 (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom case case

Arbcom case case At the current arbcom. case, here, user:mantanmoreland appears to be arguing that virtually every post to this case opposing their position is from a sock of Wordbomb!

Sockpuppeting

...Most of the contents of this page have been on the ASM website for well over a year. If Judd Bagley, Overstock's spokesman and operator of ASM, were not coordinating this, I am sure he would have a case for copyright infringement...(User:Mantanmoreland)

(DIFF?)

I may have misread, and I dont intend presenting evidence at this time, but if that is the same old argument, it is easily refuted. All known socks of WB are listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WordBomb and none of them have posted to the arbcom. case, as far as i can see. FYINewbyguesses - Talk 06:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(further down) Look at

The editors who know Sami and I best, and are not necessarily friends of either of us, believe quite firmly that we are different people based on writing style and the positions we took, and didn't take, in 600-odd emails. (User:Mantanmoreland)

nbg/with respect, Mantan, it is not a matter of the editors who know you best, but of all the WPeditors, most of whom have never met you, your peers. FYINewbyguesses - Talk 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Further:

I would ask, as a concerned observer, how does Cla68 answer this from User:Mantanmoreland --

Naked shorting is a subject that has received widespread news coverage, so naturally there are news articles cited. For most substantive points, the article relies on the SEC website.

user:mantanmoreland--He *Cla68* objects to this [158] perfectly proper edit by Samiharris, cutting the length of an overlong paragraph on the antisocialmedia.net smear campaign, correcting an inaccuracy that attributed an allegation to the wrong source.

How does Cla68 respond to this by Mantan?

That same edit also removed a notable journalist's comment:

'Bloomberg.com columnist Susan Antilla writes that the website attack on Weiss, "Is but the latest example of the public relations path Overstock and Bagley have taken to wage their bizarre battle against naked shorts."

(user:mantanmoreland)--The rest of his *Cla68's"evidence" relates to the raw deal he supposedly has gotten through much of his wiki-life, and has nothing to do with this arbitration.

nbg/with respect Mantan, it is for the arbitrators to decide what is to do with this arbitration, not yourself./nbg

That's what i would ask, if I were to haver evidence to present, i guess. Instead, I ask you FWIW, pardon I mean, FYINewbyguesses - Talk 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FYIGFDL-- my evidence, if I present it would be.. FYINewbyguesses - Talk 09:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have done it now. —Newbyguesses - Talk 16:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Don't you think that calling for WB to be allowed to return for this period as well as asking for accountability for actions taken some time ago is pushing it in terms of what will be permitted just a little? Relata refero (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Could be, but I think that full and open discussion of all aspects of the issue by everyone reasonably involved and willing to do so should be allowed. We want to try to completely resolve the matter, leaving no hanging issues. Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mild objection

I would like to register a mild objection to your evidence against me in the Mantanmoreland case. Here "Overstock abusers" was a quote from the previous comment; you will note please that I also said that editors who used such tactics were absolutely not welcome to edit Wikipedia, unless they are willing to leave that behind them when they put on their Wikipedia hat. Clearly, if Piperdown or someone like him was willing to edit other topics, leaving Overstock, MM and associated topics behind, we would not even know he was here. And here please note that my comments about naked short selling obviously apply to Wordbomb but that my comments about misogynistic and antisemitic edits refers to other stalkers of SlimVirgin and others, not to Bagley. Finally, you can call this a poison pill if you like, but it is a fact that the suspicion was raised by more than one checkuser, and by at least one non-checkuser admin, and was a matter of consultation among myself and other checkusers before I answered the request, so it seems reasonable to mention it; if only to give an answer to those users and admins who may remember Wordbomb also using proxies and wonder whether it was looked into. Thatcher 01:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think those are good points and I'm going to retract those statements and I apologize for making them. I don't think you should have said that about WordBomb and SamiHarris, but I'm going to retract it anyway. Cla68 (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher removal

What are you removing someone else's evidence for? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I remove someone else's evidence? I thought I removed evidence from my section only. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, my booboo. Sorry, Very rough case here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Tried to get the AfD undeleted

I wish this was undeleted because it has one of Mantanmoreland's most duplicitous statements. Anyhow, here's a deleted diff where he expands his initial comment: [5]. Admins would be able to see this:

• Keep Yes this is a "classic example." It is a classic example of an attack page in the guise of an AfD, and I think it is a little shocking that this AfD has not already been deleted. This is the continuation of a harassment campaign against Weiss, myself and specific admins that has been waged on and off-Wiki by sock/meatpuppets of User:WordBomb, on various venues off-Wiki, including anti-Wiki websites. Among the targets is this article, which has been semiprotected to prevent vandalism.

The claims of sockpuppetry by three unnamed editors (presumably myself and the two other editors who disagreed with Cla68 over the last 24 hrs.) are outrageous lies. So is the WP:VAIN assertion, which is rubbish, which is made in a link, now deleted, from a cockamamie anonymous website obviously maintained by banned editor and notorious troll User:WordBomb, who has been harassing myself and other editors via multiple sockpuppets as can be seen from his user page. I urge interested editors to view the actual edit history of this article, which is notable for its relative inactivity in recent weeks and for the utter lack of substance to Cla68's claims. --Mantanmoreland 06:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. Cool Hand Luke 02:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for asking to have it undeleted. The link to it is in my evidence section, and the arbitrators should all be able to view it. If any non-administrators want to view it, I know where a copy of the AfD is kept off-wiki, and can refer them to it. Cla68 (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you could

I suggest you take a look at this proposed FoF of yours, where I've suggested an emendation based on a statement by dmcdevit. Of course, you might want to ask him additional questions, but it seems he would consider it a matter of courtesy to have some action taken asap. Relata refero (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If a third party, like one of the arbitrators, looks at what he deleted and tells me that he acted properly, then I'll retract it and apologize. Cla68 (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As an admin, I can tell you that the edits were oversighted. As I don't have oversight rights, I can't say whether or not it was done right. See Wikipedia:Oversight#Users with Oversight permissions for the list who may be able to tell. GRBerry 20:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats on the USAF incident FAC passing. For future reference, you can use the |accessdate= and |accessyear= parameters so as to have a consistent date. Woody (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip and for the helpful comments. Cla68 (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

More congrats if you want it

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15604&view=findpost&p=80617

Don't know if you have an account there, so he you are. Viridae^Talk 11:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an account there, so please pass on my thanks to the members of the committee and the academy. Cla68 (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin?

Are you ready to try for adminship again? I saw what happened last time and thought it was a shame. Jehochman ^Talk 23:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Responded by email. Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Regarding this, note the provision at WP:RFC that "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." (Emphasis is in the original.) Just wanted to make sure you were aware since I've seen RFCs backfire. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Cla68 is helping Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: RfC

I bet my block is influential. I will not have any involvement in the RFC. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 15:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Notifications

I have notified everyone in the tried and failed to resolve the dispute bit, as well as durova and dan tobias - the former because she was in that part but I'm not sure she will want to take part and the latter because he expressed interest. Viridae^Talk 11:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. Cla68 (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

asking for your support

Good day, I am soliciting your input and support for reinstating an article that I wrote called Leo J Meyer. Col Meyer was a soldier who started out in pre WWII National Guard ranks. After being called to Federal service and serving in the Pacific for most of 1942 he attended USAAF OCS in Miami Beach Fl along with several Hollywood personalities. His squad Sergeant was William Holden. He continued thru the war to Japan and returned after it to NYNY. He reenlisted in the National Guard and then transferred back onto active duty. He managed to get his commission reinstated and spent the rest of his time on active Army until retiring as a Colonel in 1971. He actually participated in combat in three wars and was awarded three Combat Infantryman Badges (read the article and the article on the CIB to learn the significance).

Besides telling a story of a man who “just wanted to be a soldier” I intended to wet the whistle of readers with a glimpse of US Army history (federalization of NG, WWII enlisted rank system, etc) hoping to encourage further investigation and learning of that history via Wikipedia.

I began posting the article to Wikipedia in late November 2007. By late January 2008 I felt the military biography was essentially complete without telling anecdotal stories about him and his friends like Hugh Casey for whom Camp Casey, Korea was named. That would only point out his personality and not necessarily be encyclopedic. At the end of January 08 a Wikipedia Administrator nominated the article for deletion. Although there were a couple of administrators who participated in the discussions who supported leaving the article, the decision was made to delete.

Obviously I feel that the Military Biographical Article falls in line with other articles of soldiers like Meyer’s friend Frederick Weyand whose article was the example I followed.

I found that those people who participated in the AfD did not read everything published or what was there very clearly, i.e. I hade posted an image of an article from an Army publication which addressed Meyer’s earning his parachute wings at age 51 and I had included from the get go the title of a book about Scrimshaw in which some of his art work was published by the books author. One complaint about this later was that there was no ISBN. I could not find one but I have found the Library of Congress Catalog numbers for the two books referenced.

I have modified the article and it is currently at User:Meyerj user page. I am inviting you to read it and if you support reinstating it, helping me to do so.

Thank you for your time. Meyerj (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

==Leo J. Meyer==

Please have a look at the DRV for Leo J. Meyer (currently seen at User:Meyerj) located at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March. Its my opinion that the article met the standards for verifiability and notability. I would appreciate your input into the matter. MrPrada (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Source

Thanks for this source, I hadn't seen that one. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

As you know being part of that crowd, the discussion was started, restored and is being continued by several long running ax-grinders with Jimbo both on and off site. Transparently using 'concern' as a reason to air Jimbo's dirty laundry and create drama is by definition that is disruptive editing. For that reason alone it can and should be ended and archived. You want to discuss Jimbo's personal imbroglios? This isn't the place for it; do it offsite. FeloniousMonk (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The cliqueism whereby NPOV is put aside to judge people and their ideas strictly based on which "crowd" they're part of is something I had hoped had been thoroughly discredited lately. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss it? Why isn't it? You don't seem to realize that the best way to put something to bed is to discuss it expeditiously and openly, not treat it like it's radioactive and relegate it to off-site forums or a private mailing list that only a few Wikipedians are allowed to or choose to belong to. Cla68 (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

The credit for adding balance to that article in recent weeks goes to Msalt, Jayen466, Francis Schonken. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That may be but you deserve credit for helping make sure they had the opportunity to balance that article. That was some good work. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some good work by Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) especially, however much more work needs to be done to improve balance/neutrality on that article. Cirt (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

I don't mean to take the wind out of your sails with my comment. The point I mean to make is, we're being told scope is limited because certain names and issues weren't added to the case. That makes sense on the face of it, but I have doubts when I think of the impact that adding my own name to the case had: going from there is no dispute to yes, but your dispute is beside the point. If that distracts from the main thrust of your statement then feel free to remove my comments from that subthread. Durova^Charge! 04:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with what you said. Cla68 (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC sandbox(es)

Hi -- I'd like to see the sandbox(es) restored that were in use before the JzG2 RfC went live. Would you have a problem with that? A temporary restore would be ok too. Alternatively, I could ask an admin for a copy by email, but I'm also interested in the edit history. See also my request on Viridae's talk page here. Thanks. Avb 11:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no problem. Cla68 (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Restored. GRBerry 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I've checked the things I wanted to know. Avb 14:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Redeleted. GRBerry 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft

Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC draft

I've started a draft user conduct RfC here. Cla68 (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to really enjoy doing these. Am I on your list? Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What list? If you want to see the main impetus for this one, review the recent Mantanmoreland ArbCom case, especially the evidence page. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

please remove item 9 from the sandbox draft. i'm not a party to this matter. Anastrophe (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

done. Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I'm not in interested in witch hunts. Your arguments seem too fragmented to be coherient. Sorry about the bad spelling;) Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This RfC is in its initial stages. Please keep it on your watchlist. I think you'll see as it develops that it isn't a witch hunt, but long overdue. Cla68 (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Long overdue? Hunt? Please. Ceoil (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid this last comment is a little too subtle for me (It's 10:30 here in Japan and I'm not used to staying up very late). If you have specific and detailed feedback to give, please let me have it. Cla68 (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Cla, hit the 'hit' button instead of preview, and then went downstairs for coffey unaware of the devistation behind me. Eejit! Just to say I'm not awawre of most of your evidence, and so am uncomfurtible being 'named' or 'presented' in evidence. I do like your articles though, so I hope the above is not fatal. ? Ceoil (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem at all taking your name off of it [6]. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Cla68 (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cla. The thing is, I behaved quite poorly during that episode, and I want to leave it in the past. I don't have a paticular openion on SV, I was more motivated in defence of SG. Speaking of which; I'm always impressed by what you offer to FAC, hope this discussion hasn't tained a friendship... I'm usually a nice guy, though I can be some fucking bitch at times. Ceoil (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of your draft. I'm not familiar with the episode described therein, though my own experiences with the editor in question are eerily reminescent. I'm not sure adding them would help though, since they took place a little more than a year ago. I do admire your tenacity in expecting that all editors, even "highly respected" admins, be held to the same standards. I'm skeptical however that anything at all will ever be done given the tendency to ignore such complaints dealing with this editor's conduct in the past. I will follow how things develop though and intervene with comments if appropriate. Good luck! Tiamut^talk 14:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism

The edits seem to be there.[7] Sometimes edit histories are misplaced when a page is cut-and-paste moved. Most of the admin work I do is fixing those. In this case it all looks right to me. Cool Hand Luke 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. It's only been recently that protections make an edit summary. They used to be silent. But you can see them on the logs. Crum did protect it.[8] Cool Hand Luke 04:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that recently though. This is also in the history.[9] Cool Hand Luke 04:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I got it now. Wrong year. Cla68 (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Change to WP:Harassment

You're right, there's no "real objection", as long as you ignore all the people who object. In any event, please get a real consensus for this significant policy change before attempting to modify policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the (notice, I said "the" not "your") "real" consensus? How many people? What percentage of project participants? Only established editors? If so, what's an established editor? Only admins? Please, tell me where it says what "the real" consensus is. I think the policy will be changed, because right now there is a discrepancy between Harassment and COI. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What percentage of project participants have supported your changes? As for the alleged "discrepancy", there is none. In any event, the COI behavioral guideline is advice for editors on how they should edit, not advice for others on how to out people they suspect have a COI, and it certainly doesn't trump the WP:BLOCK or WP:OVERSIGHT policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out the COI noticeboard where several threads currently out other editors, apparently without censure. If the harassment and block policies really trumped COI, then this wouldn't be going on on the COI noticeboard. By not doing anything about it, you and other admins have already set the precedent that outing for COI reasons is ok, whether it says so or not in the rest of the policies. Cla68 (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Which specific threads are you referring to? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple [10] [11]. Cla68 (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In the first example, the userid appears to include a name. Regardless, it may be that some of the postings on the COI noticeboard are inappropriate. If so, that's an issue with the COI noticeboard, not WP:BLOCK, WP:OVERSIGHT, and WP:HARASSMENT. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll collect more diffs/links if necessary, but it appears that we've been outing COI editors since the project was started. The policies need to be updated to reflect what's already, rightfully going on to maintain the integrity and credibility of our NPOV encyclopedia. Cla68 (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no particular need to modify the existing policies, which are what maintain a reasonable working environment for our volunteer editors. Moreover, as explained, it's not our COI policy that "maintain[s] the integrity and credibility of our NPOV encyclopedia", it's the quality of the articles and the sources used, strict adherence to the core content policies, and a welcoming environment for editors. Indeed, if all editors adhered strictly to the core content policies then COI would be irrelevant. WP:COI is a guideline intended to help editors recognize when they might have difficulties adhering to the core content policies, not a manual for others to out editors they suspect have a conflict of interest. Your puffing up the COI guideline as the savior of Wikipedia's "integrity and credibility" seems to me to be a case of exaggerating the guideline's impact and intent, and devaluing far more important policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You honestly feel that I'm exaggerating the importance of the COI guideline? Have you been paying attention to Wikipedia-related news lately? One of the major reasons the Jimbo/Marsden/Merkey story was so noticed was because of the allegations that Jimbo might have violated COI by influencing the bio article of his girlfriend and the bio of Merkey for money for the Foundation. I would think that you would be very concerned about allegations of COI by our editors, because, if true, it could call into question the credibility of large numbers of articles in our project and the good faith of some of our most active editors. In fact, after our conversations here and at WP:AN and the COI Noticeboard, I'm now fairly sure that the COI guideline needs to be upgraded to policy status, because, our credibility does depend to a great deal on investigations of and resolving COI allegations. Cla68 (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Coppertwig and Calton put it better than I could have. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig's reply was helpful, but Calton calling a Register reporter a "whackjob" was, unfortunately, counterproductive. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of the Prem Rawat article receiving any significant coverage in any reputable press, and the "discrepancy" you claim exists is illusory at best. And we need to be even more careful not to change policies in pursuit of agendas that have nothing whatsoever to do with the policies themselves. And Calton's comments regarding a "solution-in-search-of-a-problem", among others, were spot-on. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Now what?

Cla68...once again, I remind myself of your excellent FA work and thank you for those articles. However, I see you are working on another potential Rfc here...what exactly is the problem between you and Slim? I would like to once again ask you to resume your excellent article work and well, let bygones be bygones. I thought this issue was long dead by now...why is it still festering?--MONGO 02:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review my evidence in the Matanmoreland ArbCom case. Since the events detailed in that case occured, there has appeared to be a continued history of problematic editing by this editor. In looking at the editor's talkpage history, I was surprised by the number of disputes between her and other editors, many of whom are, like yourself, frequent contributors to quality, NPOV articles and not normally in dispute with other editors. I believe a review of this editor's editing history by the community is past due. Please feel free to join in drafting the RfC and, of course, commenting on it once it is posted. Cla68 (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cla68, I saw your evidence on the MM case regarding Slim and arbcom did nothing about it. frankly, continuing to try and dredge up the same issues makes you look less interested in encyclopedia writing and more interested in axe grinding...seriously, man...I recommend you drop it and move on.--MONGO 03:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern. Cla68 (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than "a continued history of problematic editing by this editor", your RFC seems to be a coatrack of unrelated complaints, stretching back months or years, few if any with validity, an attempt to create a witch-hunt rather than solve any real or pressing problem. I strongly recommend that you drop the RFC, and your unhealthy focus on SlimVirgin, and instead focus on editing articles.--MONGO 03:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The RfC is in its beginning stages. In looking at the editor's editing history, I'm frankly stunned by the amount of condescending, rude behavior towards other editors, POV pushing, bullying, attempts to "get even", and outright lying involving this editor. Check back in another few weeks, I think you'll see what I'm talking about. You can have the last word here on this thread if you'd like. Cla68 (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

COI precedent

I'm glad you found the SlimVirgin diff. I have seen other cases too but I can't readily find them. There isn't much institutional memory here. :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 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) 00:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Missing article

The content of List of animal rights activists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as of December 2006 was moved, with history, to Animal rights movement (list) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was then redirected to Animal rights movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hope that helps! Kirill 03:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Expert help needed

Hi, apologies for taking some of your time. User:Nick Dowling recommended you (see here) as someone who maybe able to help me in a referencing problem for 3 Japan military related articles on subjects from the WWII period. I have already asked this question on the Japanese military history task force talk page but have had no response. Sorry if you have already seen this query there, but I am no expert in Japan or its military history so would appreciate some expert guidance. Any help would be much appreciated, even if it is to advise where/who else to ask. regards ascidian | talk-to-me 12:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but it looks like you identified correct sources. I also responded at the Japan MilHist page. Cla68 (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at them, its a great help to know I'm on the right track. I'll also try and look at those other two sources you mentioned. regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 19:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cla... if you get a chance, mind taking a gander at Bezhin Meadow? It's the one I'm working on now--I've got a ton of sources at User:Lawrence Cohen/work/Bezhin Meadow that I still need to go through. Any early feedback would be appreciated, as in the past. I've got it in for a GA nom, I think it's probably 6-8 weeks from an FA nom, if I can keep up the pace from the past few days and not get sidetracked. Thanks! Lawrence § t/e 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. I don't work much on film articles, but doesn't the film plot section come before the production section? If not, no big deal. Also, you might try to explain in greater detail why the Soviet authorities didn't like the film. After reading their rationale, I still don't understand why they didn't like it. But, perhaps that's the point. Maybe their reasoning was contradictory and didn't make much sense. Also, what was the critical reaction to the film after it was finally released? And, what type of cinematographic style did it use, surrealism, noir, hyper-realism, etc.? And whatever style it used, was it the same kind of style used by most Russian film makers of that time? Anyway, looks like a good start. Cla68 (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The reason the Soviet authorities sank it is absurdly contradictory, added in by the fact the man mainly responsible may or may not have been an English spy--as far as I can tell, about 1/4 through the sources, a mystery. I put the production before the summary, since it seems like the production itself is more notable than the film. It seems odd to me, as well--the story being the filming of the film, rather than the film itself. I'll look into expanding the other bits based on your suggestions. The sources are rich, but a bear to get through. The reaction/legacy section I think will end up the largest in the end... Lawrence § t/e 03:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A-class review of Armia Krajowa

In March you've commented on the Armia Krajowa article, which have eventually passed the A-class review. Since then I have been steadily expanding the article (my goal is to FA it one day), but in recent days a content dispute is threatening to destabilize this article; your comments would be much appreciated here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! I don't understand the dispute and talk page is difficult to parse because the participants there seem to be already very knowledgeable in what the dispute is. Please explain to me what the dispute is about assume (correctly) that I have no background at all in what it involves. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue involves the lead. Some users want to add this information to the lead. As I explained in my large post at the bottom of this thread, such claims seem undue and fringe. For example, a similar argument would be to add claims about Free French committing war crimes (per this) to the lead of Free French article (which I'd oppose, of course), or claim about US Army committing atrocities to the lead of US Army (per Canicattì massacre, for example) and so on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd take it to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and post a link and notification about the thread there on the talk page of the article, and perhaps on the talk pages of the editors involved. The editors at that noticeboard could provide some good advice on how to approach the dispute. Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about the noticeboard, I haven't thought of that. What to you yourself think about the fringiness (or lack of it) of the information discussed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Cla68.

I've followed your RfC on SlimVirgin and maybe these links can be helpful.

• [12]
• [13]
• [14]

Also, you've got to be very careful. Scarfullery, who pointed out that you should investigate the articles on Pierre Salinger and the Pan Am Flight 103, was banned by Jpgordon, who accused him/her of being a sockpuppet of User: Flor Silvestre. It happens that some time ago, Flor Silvestre made some edits about Salinger and the PanAm 103 case, and was blocked too.

These articles history was deleted (by Jpgordon or JzG, I don't recall) just as SlimVirgin deleted her edits on Pierre Salinger and the Pan Am Flight 103. --Caravato (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked the links you provided and they don't provide much evidence that can be used in this RfC. This RfC is to invite community comment on problematic behavior on wiki, and as such, needs to be based on diffs or in-wiki links showing actual violations of guidelines or policies. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I need to talk to you

I'd like to send you an e-mail. --Goldfingaaa (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My email is linked at left. Click on "email this user". Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but where?--Goldfingaaa (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Cla68 is what you want. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Lawrence. Cla68 (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why I don't answer the question

I have replied to each question raised - as long as that question was based on my wikipedia edits. I refuse to discuss accusations made by outside source which are not supported in any way by diffs within wikipedia. This is a fundemntall issue of keeping disputes and accusation outside wikipedia seprate from what takes place here. All my edit are in good faith and if you find any of my edits that need to be explained or discussed I will gladly do so. Zeq (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's well known that there are POV problems with the Israel-related articles, and some long-time admins have been involved and have not been held fully accountable for their actions. But, it may be that you're being unfairly railroaded in this particular situation. We'll see how things go with the issue. Cla68 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

News! Tag & Assess 2008 is coming ...

Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

One Stripe (200 articles) Two Stripes (400 articles) Three Stripes (600 articles) Tireless Contributor Barnstar (1000 articles) Chevrons (2000 articles) Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles) Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles) Third place overall Second place overall First place overall

Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [15] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 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) 00:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Stay away

You aren't an admin, so this comment was uncivil. There was absolutely no consensus that I have misused Twinkle, and I dare you to show me exactly one statement anywhere on Wikipedia on the how to use Twinkle other than "stay within the rules of Wikipedia." Which I have done. Prove otherwise, or I suggest you apologize on my page or here. I don't care. Based on what I've read of your contributions, I don't expect an apology, so I suggest you stay off my page, unless it's to apologize.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not uncivil, well deserved. Just because he doesn't have the ability to directly back up that warning, doesn't mean others won't. Viridae^Talk 22:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You support someone who is attempting to out me? Wow. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence whatsoever of Cla attempting to out you. Viridae^Talk 22:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda and GWH seem to think so. I do too. Sorry you can't see the evidence, but you seem to be in the attack mode with me, so I guess I need to move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone outs you OM, it won't be me. If there aren't any more behavioral problems with content in the Intelligent Design-related articles, then my involvement in the issue ends. Cla68 (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tadayoshi Sano, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this really appropriate?

I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.

That reads quite a bit like a threat to out people. It's off-wiki, so you can be as rude as you want, but your threat to out people strikes me as rather beyond the pale. Guettarda (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's unambiguously a threat to out people. Which will get you indef'ed if you follow through on it, and you know that. That's been policy for a very long time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not threatening to "out" them to the press. I have no control over what the press chooses to report on. My comment was based on someone elses comment earlier in that thread that they had been discussing the situation with an Associated Press reporter. So, it wasn't me that had implied that they had gotten the press involved. I was trying to point that out to any interested reader. Why do you guys feel that I have any influence with the press? Cla68 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that group of editors' behavior related to Intelligent Design articles has become such a problem that uninvolved editors and admins like me have noticed the problem and gotten involved to varying degrees. I hope that the editors in question are willing and able to correct their behavior on their own. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I clarified my remarks here [16]. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that your responses and "clarification" look very much like thinly veiled threats, in the old gangster tradition. Before throwing around accusations about "POV pushing", it would be best for you to make yourself thoroughly conversant with the background and detail of the circumstances and detail of the case. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to do my best to assist you. Of course if you do think you have a substantial case, I'd advise you to follow dispute resolution procedures rather than getting involved in off-wiki sniping. .. dave souza, talk 08:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)