User talk:Cla68

Response to your comment

here

Links

No problem friend. Don't feel some guilt or something like that. I've just done some maintenance. Btw, I am watching your professional edits for some time and must say you look like an expert for World War II. Do you study a history or something similar ? - Darwinek 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel the same satisfaction creating and editing all these articles. Surely it will help many people. I believe Wikipedia will become really a huge encyclopedia in a few years. It just started in 2001, I am here since 2004 and must say it's every year twice larger. Anyway, if you will need some help or assistance in future (I am an admin), just let me know. :) - Darwinek 07:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Shut out

Hi, I saw your comment at Talk:Michael_Crichton#POV_that_Crichton_is_wrong and was wondering if you'd like to participate in WikiProject on shoring up one of Wikipedia's great weaknesses (how ideas can be "ganged-up" on and effectively shut-out), as you put it there.

If I can drum up enough interest, I'll start a project like WikiProject horse training, but hopefully it will attract more participants, last longer, and have greater effect. --Uncle Ed 14:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ooops

Forgot to say thanks for all your help on sources, etc - which was why I awarded the barnstar in the first place! John Smith's 18:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Masutatsu Oyama

A user seems bent on reverting to a version repeating unnecessarily that he is Korean. I don't see why his nationality needs be in the first line at all. I've reverted to an intro I made which I think is a lot nicer; but this person seems to show up each night and revert it. Since you also seemed interested in making a neutral article, I thought you might be able to share your input, or help improve it even better. The other party's version also (unfortunately) doesn't seem to flow as well (in my opinion)... I have a feeling this individual is alone in his opinion, and is going against the consensus. If you could watch this page I'd appreciate it. —LactoseTI^T 05:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you must also want to change the Funakoshi Gichin introduction into the following more "neutral" version.

"Gichin Funakoshi (船越 義珍 Funakoshi Gichin, 1868–1957) was a karate master who formally introduced karate to the Japanese mainland in 1921. He was born in Okinawa, but spent most of his life living in Japan."

71.124.36.224 05:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

LactoseTI, response is on your talk page. By the way ``71.124.36.224``, if I may use your name in such a casual fashion, please sign-in and use your user account name when you leave such insightful, non-petulant, and non-passive-aggressive comments on editor's discussion pages. Cla68 11:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Linda Ham

Glad to hear that you felt my (very minor) edits were useful. I'm afraid, though, that I don't have any inside information about Linda Ham. Although I'm keenly interested in NASA and particularly in Mission Control, I don't have any sources of information apart from the usual, which you seem to have covered very well already. You might well be able to find the answer to those sort of questions by simply contacting NASA's Public Affairs Office, though.

The article is shaping up very well. I might pitch in a little more here and there if it wouldn't be stepping on your toes. MLilburne 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Was just wondering whether you happen to have saved a copy of the biographical article by Michael Cabbage. Alas, it seems to have disappeared into the paid section of the site, and I could do with taking a look at it. MLilburne 16:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I've managed to find the article (and a few more where that came from) via my university library. I could e-mail them to you as PDFs if that would be useful. MLilburne 13:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Article for peer review

Hi, I have nominated the article Axis naval activity in Australian waters for peer review and Kirill has suggested that I ask you to have a look at the article. If you've got the time I'd really appreciate any feedback. Thanks, --Nick Dowling 00:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments. --Nick Dowling 10:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page comment

Hello. Thanks for you comment on my talk page, but as you can see from LactoseTI's comment, after reviewing the contributions from IP in question, he admits he "jumped the gun a bit", which is fair enough. While I do understand the fustration of vandal fighting it is important to ensure that good faith editors (whether logged in or not) are not caught up in the crossfire simply because they edit from similar geographic areas. However, my main point at the time was to correct the misunderstanding that uncited material must be tagged and should not be removed, as that was the basis of his warnings to the IP in question. While some editors choose to tag uncited claims, they are not required to do so, and in the case of uncited critism about living people, it must be removed. That is why I removed the section you tagged in Michael Crichton, as tagging was not the correct option in this case. WP:BLP is very clear on this matter - if it's critism about a living person and uncited, remove it. When it comes to non-living people, the rule isn't as absolute, but straight removal of uncited material is still perfectly acceptable hence why I pointed out that the warning someone for taking such actions (which are justified by one of the core policies) wasn't the correct thing to do. I tend towards the stricter side of requiring immediate references, only adding {{fact}} tags to minor details, but as I pointed out to LactoseTI, even for those taking a less strict view, tagging must only be a temporary measure, because in the end, it must boil down to one thing - "cite or remove". Regards, MartinRe 12:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Savo Island

File:Bulle champagne.jpg

Bravo!

Congratulations on your sixth (sixth!) featured article! Here's some champagne to celebrate the occasion! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Japanese links

Hi, Cla68. Do you need to add the links to the Japanese articles, when the interwiki links are already there: "ja:第三次ソロモン海戦", etc. And why as external links? —wwoods 07:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Help re WWII Aleutian Islands (Alaska) Campaign

Hi, Cla88. I need some help with the detail regarding Amchitka's role in WWII, and Kirill suggested that you might be able to help. I've found two sources, but these contradict each other slightly, giving different names for the people involved. Can you help with this? Thanks, Jakew 14:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. I've now revised the coverage of the section on WWII, and I'm now much happier with it. The main problem I had was that the sources were giving different names for the makers of certain decisions, but I've decided to omit names. I like to keep some human interest, but ultimately the article is about an island.

If the mood takes me, I might do a little work on the main Aleutian Islands Campaign article, as it could certainly use some work. However, I seem to have unintentionally adopted nuclear test sites as a personal project, and there are many more to do once I've finished this one... Cheers, Jakew 11:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did you find the guadalcanal maps?

I'm looking for a map that zooms in on Kolombongara island, where did you find the solomon islands map so that I can find the others? --Sugarcaddy 18:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree on the ganging up thing, I had to fight 13 people at once. --Sugarcaddy 19:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to your Japanese War Crime comments

Hey, what was wrong with the testimony edit of the nurse who stated she helped cover up bodies in West Tokyo. It had references and quotes by the people who investigated that issue. The nurses name is Toyo Iishi. If we don't give specifics in that article section people tend to delete it. Then later as time goes on references will get lost or forgotten, then people tend to state that the information is not true. I will try to re-edit it without the qoutes by the investigator which could be seen as POV, I believe they stated "legacy of Japans rampage" or something. But I think the name of the individual who testified needs to be included, otherwise the article which is sensitive to begin with is always being changed with people asking for proof. It reminds me of the holocaust section where some people keep saying it never happened. Anyways I'll add the name of the nurse, but I won't put in the quotes. Please check it out and see if you have problems with it and let me know, thanks. --4.23.83.100 10:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your report on WP:AIV

Hello. I saw your report on WP:AIV. Kindly keep in mind that you need to warn users before you report them on this page. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. I like quality new contributors to wikipedia (like myself) Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Japan dislikes and likes

I guess for me the museum was frustrating because I was with a bunch of people who kept saying how horrible it was, and one stupid girl who said to the Japanese with us "I want to apologize for what my country did to you" followed by solemn nods from other foreigners in our group. But there is no mention of what preceded the bombing, other than the "cold, calculated" process America took to decide what city to bomb. It most definately is designed to elicit sympathy from the rest of the world. Even my own girlfriend said while we were there "I hate Americans." So much for fostering "peace." I have never introduced the atomic bombings into conversations when talking with a Japanese person; they always do.--Nobunaga24 01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Campaignbox Pacific 1941

I think Template:Campaignbox Pacific 1941 should be kept for three reasons. Firstly, if we are following Allied commands in our definition of campaigns/theatres, it corresponds somewhat with the short-lived American-British-Dutch-Australian Command, which preceded the three Allied supreme commands formed in mid-1942 --- the Pacific Ocean Areas (command), South West Pacific Area (command) and the South East Asia Command. Second, I also think that if we combine the Pacific 1941 items in the other two (or three) they will become too big and unwieldly. Third, "Pacific 1941" covers the period of the Japanese offensives up to and including Midway, after which the tide of war turned. Thanks, Grant65 | Talk 07:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

it was a violation of WP:BLP

your edit in my page is non factual and is in fact bad faith in itself, i consider it a vandalism to my page. I was concerned with the libel in it after revewing WP:BLP concerning some other case (being on the other side). No, i'm not the same as mantanmoreland... that's ridicilous and bad faith too since it's obvious we're not, though I've become interested in some of his interests and vice-versa, that's true. Amoruso 23:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Weiss bio

As to sources, the material about Weiss' education and early jobs probably comes from Weiss' blog. http://www.gary-weiss.com/bio.htm

Blogs are not always reliable as sources, of course, but it isn't clear to me why anybody would suspect Weiss of lying in the particular respects at issue here (do you really pad your resume by pretending to have working at a newspaper in Hartford, Conn.?). --Christofurio 01:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(removing edit by confirmed sockpuppet of User:Wordbomb)

Your edit to my user page

Re [1] You reinstated a bad faith vandalism warning from the anon user in question. I and an administrator had removed personal attacks. The page of the anon user in question was semiprotected to prevent reversion of the personal attacks. Please desist from edits of that character. Thanks. --Mantanmoreland 07:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your POV-pushing and personal attacks

Re [2], use of the term "self promotional" is on the cusp between aggressive POV-pushing and vandalism. Please stop.

Also, re your various comments on the Gary Weiss talk page and elsewhere (such as use of the phrase "bad faith " in [3]), please refrain from personal attacks and ad hominem comments, and please address your comments to the article and not the editor. --Mantanmoreland 11:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't personal attacks, those are accurate descriptions of what's going-on with that article. Personal attacks are much different in nature. Evidence strongly suggests that the article is being used for self-promotion. That's a big no-no. Believe me, it's not personal. Also, unlike you, I won't be deleting your comments from my user page immediately because I don't have anything to hide. Cla68 13:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Cla68. I saw your afd for the Gary Weiss. My concern is that it links to a non-Wikipedia site for its evidence. Technically, we're not supposed to accept off-Wikipedia evidence. What's worse, that particular site tries to "out" some Wikipedia members, posting alleged personal information and libel against them. By an earlier arbcom ruling, links to "attack sites" can be deleted by anyone, and although the page you link to isn't really problematic, the site arguably is.

For both those reasons, I'm going to remove your link. It's nothing personal, and I don't have a stake at all in whether the Gary Weiss article should be kept or not. Feel free to summarize the info from that site into the afd page. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Gary Weiss

After the AfD process has run its course, and if the article is voted for keeping, I'll attempt again to edit the Weiss article to remove the self-promotion and make it a neutral article that contains all cited, relevant information about the subject. If I'm blocked again in doing so, then the next step will be as you suggest. Cla68 14:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious whether I'm one of the alleged "three socks" to whom you refer in the Afd. For what it's worth to you, I'm nobody's sock. If you're determined to believe I am, I suppose you can. I'm just curious about the reference. --Christofurio 14:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't care if an editor is a sock puppet or not as long as they don't use Wikipedia for self-promotion or to promote someone else in violation of the Conflict of Interest guidelines and follow all of the other policies of Wikipedia. I sincerely believe that the Gary Weiss article is being used to inappropriately to promote the subject. If the usual editors of that article continue to block others from editing it or changing it within Wikipedia's guidelines, then they need to stop it. If one or more people are using several different accounts as sock puppets to block attempts to remove the POV/promotion from the article, then it's valid to state during the conflict resolution process that evidence exists that sock puppetry is occurring. Evidence is usually circumstantial, but in cumulative form can be a strong case for detecting sock puppetry. If the issues with the article are forced to be presented to arbitrators, then any evidence can be presented there. Cla68 03:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You said this: "the three editors who consistently edit and monitor the article are sock puppets...." I'm wondering: was the statement, which after all you reaffirm every moment that you don't edit it differently, intended to refer to me? That's the question. If you have three wiki names in mind of which "Christofurio" isn't one, then the right answer is "no." If you have two other names in mind plus my own when you say that, then the right answer is "yes." In neither case is "I really don't care" a responsive answer, since you cared enough to make the reference, and that's the caring that counts here. I don't care what you believe, but if you're willing to use a phrase like "three ... socks" you should be willing either to retract it or to name the three names. I am of course perfectly willing to have you bring the issue before the arbs. --Christofurio 04:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely hope we don't have to go to arbitration, because there's an easier resolution. That's to allow other editors to edit the article within Wikipedia guidelines, whether the "regular" editors of that article necessarily agree with those edits or not. If that can happen then there's no problem, whether you're a "sock" or not. You seem more concerned over whether you're accused as one of the "socks" than about the problems with the article. I myself am accused of being the sockpuppet of a banned user in the AfD discussion about the Gary Weiss article. However, the accusation doesn't worry me because I'm not trying to do anything underhanded, I'm trying to help correct a problem article. I guess I could ask that particular editor for his/her evidence of why I'm supposedly a sockpuppet? Instead, I'd rather spend my time working to contribute to Wikipedia's body of knowledge and helping correct any abuses I find. Cla68 06:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no "regular editors" of Gary Weiss. There is one regular vandal, and it is WordBomb. Your behavior has closely approximated his in this manner: your edit here [4], your rush to a WP:POINT AfD after approximately four contributions to the article, and your citation of an off-Wiki attack site. Yes, I believe that you are a sockpuppet of WordBomb. But if you are not, you are doing an excellent imitation of one. If you don't want to be mistaken for a sockpuppet of WordBomb, don't behave like him. Incidentally, one of his fave techniques - this from one of the most notorious sockpuppets in Wiki history - is to accuse others of sockpuppetry. Again, you came charging into that article doing just that. I have, by the way, deleted the comment at the start of this section from the latest WordBomb sockpuppet. --Mantanmoreland 09:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Cla68. I've now twice tried to get you to give me a straight answer to a simple question. I won't try any more. You have plainly decided you don't wish to do so. You only wish to lecture me about what I should be "concerned" about. Well, frankly, I'm not at all "concerned" about the possibility of an arbitration, because I know I'm not a sock. You brought it up, not I. And your evasiveness about your own charge concerning the "three socks" is intriguing. --Christofurio 15:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comment

Hi Cla, could you say what you meant this by comment, please? "Now that 'high administrator' protection for that article has apparently ended, we can methodically work on ensuring that the article belongs on Wikipedia ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I was being facetious with that comment. Some of the sources I read that have discussed the Gary Weiss Wikipedia entry in outside websites appear to believe that there's a "conspiracy" by high-level administrators to "protect" the Weiss entry. I don't believe that to be true. I can see in past actions involving that article that administrators have acted to protect it, but I don't believe they were doing so out of some sort of "conspiracy." I believe that it's just an example of extremely busy Wikipedia administrators trying to do their job to keep Wikipedia running smoothly and just didn't have the time or reason to investigate further what might be occuring with that particular entry, one of thousands that each administrator monitors. In that case, it's up to "regular" editors like me, who in addition to our regular projects (military history articles for me) sometimes try to assist the community in finding and resolving abuses occuring on Wikipedia. The Gary Weiss article, to me, is an egregious example of someone using Wikipedia for self-promotion and putting a lot of time and effort into "gaming" the Wikipedia system. I believe the "system" works and that we can bring that article back into the community, put it into the proper form for Wikipedia, and let it be one more small step in the continuous effort to, not only improve Wikipedia's body of knowledge, but to further improve Wikipedia's credibility in the world on-line community. Cla68 23:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Be careful about repeating material from attack sites, or believing any of it. The truth is that no one knows who has edited that or any other article, unless the person has identified themselves, and it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to attempt to out someone, whether the details are accurate or not. The best thing, as you say, is to keep an eye on the article so that POV in either direction can be countered or removed; if everyone edits in accordance with the content policies, there won't be a problem. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern and attention on the matter. There won't be a problem if whoever or whomever it is that's trying so hard to keep that article in it's present form allows other editors to add citations or delete uncited text and place additional information (as long as it's cited and credible) to the entry in accordance with Wikipedia's established guidelines. Up until now, that doesn't appear to have happened. In accordance with Wikipedia rules, I won't try to find out exactly who (if it is a particular person) may be behind what's going on with that article. But I will try to correct the problems that have been ongoing with that article since its inception, using Wikipedia's system for conflict resolution. Cla68 03:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You say something or other "doesn't appear to have happened." What has happened is that the Gary Weiss page has been a subject of repeated vandalism from one editor and one editor alone - the banned editor and notorious troll you keep chatting with, User:WordBomb. This edit[5] - in which you added the phrase "self promotional" to a descriptiion the Weiss website - is classic WordBomb, and so is your other behavior on the Gary Weiss page, its talk page, as well as your reversion of WordBomb "warnings" to my talk page and Amoroso's. Even if you are not WordBomb, your are doing an excellent imitation of one. Your repeated warm dialogue with the confirmed WordBomb sockpuppet was classic WordBomb. Your AfD was classic WP:POINT as well as classic WordBomb. I suggest that you desist.--Mantanmoreland 09:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, you're attacking the messenger, not the message. The problem is that much of the article is uncited and appears to come from Weiss' blog or personal website. Also, cited and referenced material, neutrally presented, is deleted without discussion. The structure of the article, as commented on by other editors in the AfD discussion, contains material that is promotional and inappropriate in nature for a Wikipedia entry. Everytime you attack my credibility, I'll repeat this same list of problems that currently exist in the article, because these problems are the entire crux of the matter. Once these issues are resolved, there will no longer be a problem because I, and the rest of the community, will have done our duty in helping resolve this situation. Have you complained to the other editors from the AfD discussion who expressed similar concerns to mine? I'm not the only one that feels that the article has problems that need to be remedied. Cla68 09:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You keep on making broad generalities such as "cited and referenced material, neutrally presented, is deleted without discussion" when in fact the problem is a limited number of POV-pushing edits by yourself over a period of several hours. There was nothing "neutral" about this edit [6]. It was, as I pointed out, on the cusp between crude POV pushing and vandalism. The other significant problematic edit was your adding an entire section on a ten-year-old, withdrawn lawsuit that was inaccurately described by yourself. Yes, your wording of it was neutral, which was why I did not challenge it when I first saw it. However, a few days later I read the cited editor's note and saw that you were totally mischaracterizing what had happened.

As for the supposed "sourcing" problems with the article -- this is a brief article about a journalist taken from the public record that recites his background in a neutral fashion. Using routine biographical material (worked at a paper in Connecticut, etc.) from the personal website of the subject of an article is routine practice. This article is no different from the dozens of other articles about journalists that are the subject of articles in Wiki. The only difference is that this journalist is the subject of a smear campaign, of which an essential part is that attack website you are quoting and whose attitudes you reflect. Your harping on this is further evidence of your bad faith and agenda.

As I see it, the only "problems" with this article is the waste of time involved in dealing with your POV pushing and disruptive behavior. You came to this article with a massive chip on your shoulder and have been aggressive and hostile, as the result of being either a flag-bearer for the attack website you have quoted or being a sockpuppet yourself. Either way, your behavior is unacceptable.--Mantanmoreland 10:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Once the AfD has run its course, and if the article is voted to be kept, I, and any other interested editors, will show how the article should look based on any credible references that exist. You can decide what to do after that. Cla68 10:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Cla, thank you for your note. I applaud your desire to get the article in shape, but I do urge caution. The article is under attack by sockpuppets of a banned user. You should not restore any warning templates to Mantanmoreland's talk page, in case they were placed there by the banned user. You should also not make edits such as this one. Please review the content policies very carefully, particularly WP:V. This states that personal websites, including blogs, may be used as sources in articles about the author, although they should be used with caution. Here is the relevant section. You should therefore not remove material simply because it is sourced to one of Weiss's websites, nor should you write anything to suggest the website can't be trusted. Also, please don't imply sockpuppetry of regular editors without strong evidence: Christofurio, for example, is not a sockpuppet. I strongly urge you to put out of your mind anything you may have read on an attack website and simply approach this article with a view to ensuring that it neutrally represents the positions of all reliable published sources, which includes Gary Weiss's own material. If you stick to doing that, you won't go far wrong. For what it's worth, I've advised Mantanmoreland to consider not editing this article anymore, simply because of the amount of grief it's causing him. However, the more aggressively it's edited by others, the more he will feel the need to remain involved, so please bear that in mind too. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)