User talk:Cla68

Video Still

You made and uploaded the video still for the 190th/Blues and Royals friendly fire article. I need to capture a video still for another article that I'm preparing to start but don't know how to do it. How do you capture a video still into a .jpg or .gif file? Cla68 09:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

VideoLAN has the built in function to screen capture. I use and recommend that. VideoLAN is also an excellent video player and it can even play corrupt video files to a degree. -- Cat ^chi? 09:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrator?

By the way, are you an admin? If not, would you like to be? If so, I'd be happy to nominate you. —wwoods 20:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was considering trying to become an administrator. I'm not sure if I would pass the review though. I haven't participated that much in some of the community "clean-up" activities like the AfD voting pages or the Community noticeboard and I've had a few "run-ins" with other established editors, including a couple of the more well-known administrators. If you think I could pass the admin review, however, I would accept the nomination. Cla68 23:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think the lack of community participation is a show-stopper; I don't do that much myself. I thought to ask when I saw you reverting vandalism – not for the first time – and wondered if you didn't have access to the admin tools. I don't know about your disputes with other admins, so I don't know how they'll feel... If you want to try, I'll push the button. Here's what happened to me:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wwoods

There's a standard set of questions. Don't forget to mention all those Featured Articles. :-)

—wwoods 02:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User pages

So someone gets a valid vandism notice, removes it, gets reported to AIV and the admin checks to see if they have been warned and has to dig through history pages to find it? Ha, I'll stop fighting vandals if I have to do that.Rlevse 02:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with new "rule" or not, just letting you know what seems to be the situation now from what I've read on the admin pages. One of the reasons may be due to instances of editors harrassing other editors with warning banners and then arguing back and forth about whether the warning was justified or not. Cla68 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for your helpful comments on my ANI posting regarding User:Orangemarlin. Could you please take a look at this? I imagine he feels justified by part of this discussion, where another editor comments that he likes my extensive refactoring of the Talk:Evolution but mentions refactoring should have broad consensus. Gnixon 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam and your RfA: a recruiting pitch for WP:WPSPAM

You wrote:

• "One area of special concern to me is Eric Goldman's prediction that spammers, in his opinion, will eventually "overwhelm" Wikipedia's administration and destroy the credibility of the project. So far that doesn't seem to be happening, in large part due to aggressive monitoring and action by administrators to prevent it. I would hope to participate in this effort also. Cla68 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)"

We can use all the help you can give us at WP:WPSPAM! Check out the talk page if you haven't already. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I've put that page on my watchlist and hope to help out in the future. Cla68 23:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Savo Island

Hmmm, all I was trying to do was correct Crutchley's name, reinstate Getting's name and maybe one or two other minor touches. I think we were both working on it at the same time and one or two edits got tangled up. I've seen this happen at least once before. I certainly wasn't trying to alter the stuff you are talking about. Grant | Talk 00:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hello Cla68, I just noticed your RFA and saw the comments left by SlimVirgin. Sorry but I must oppose unless I get a full explanation for your poor judgment in linking to an attack site and supporting a banned user over an Wikipedia admin in good standing. Nothing personal against you but I always take a strong stand against harassment of Wikipedians. Burn out is a real problem for our best admins due to the harassment they face daily. Take care, FloNight 12:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added a question to your RfA page requesting that you respond to the issues that have been raised. I look forward to seeing your response. Newyorkbrad 13:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that your RFA has been extended for 24 hours. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#RfA extension request. This should give you time to address the last minute concerns raised on your RFA. Take care, FloNight 14:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Hi Cla68, please refrain from posting links to sites that attack or attempt to 'out' Wikipedia editors. If you persist in doing so, you could be blocked. Many thanks, Crum375 18:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't link to the site. I just named it since it is the subject of discussion. Again, I didn't link to it as you state in your warning. I've seen other sites that are definitely Wikipedia attack sites get named in the Admin noticeboards without being deleted. Cla68 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether the user simply clicks on the name, or pastes it into the browser's URL window and hits 'Enter', is immaterial - the point is to not provide those links, that attack or attempt to out your fellow editors, in any format. Please refrain from doing so - once you have been reverted, that should make it very clear. If you persist, you will be blocked. Crum375 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read this ArbCom case, where ArbCom ruled that "links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.". Crum375 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically the current policy. (Given the benefit of hindsight, though, that ruling has lots of holes in it. It doesn't prohibit, for example, offering to email the link to anyone who asks, which is pretty much the same thing in terms of being responsible for distributing material. I suspect our definition of attack sites is going to have to be reconsidered given recent events, in any case.)

But, on a practical level, please don't link to or name the site; it's unlikely to improve affairs at this point. Kirill Lokshin 19:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for all this stuff. Nevertheless, I want you to know that such unfortunate events happen and have happened to everybody of us. In such cases, the acknowledgement that we did something wrong is the best thing to do (I say that from personal experience!). In any case, my support still stands, because I still regard you as one of the best around, and all those who know you well will not cease to respect and admire you.--Yannismarou 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Disappointing

Sorry to see what happened in your RfA; you were a very deserving candidate. SlimVirgin did almost the exact same thing to me in my RfA two months ago, smearing me with wild accusations about WordBomb. I hope you'll try again in a few months and come into it fully prepared to fend off the accusations. Everyking 13:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that you have two options here. You can live with the fact that this whole affair will for ever haunt your wikipedia experience - or you can learn from it and try to draw a line under it. If you try again for RfA in a few months, you will probably fail again as a lot of folk will say 'that's that guy that defended attack sites - oppose'. Your alternative is to reflect on why people are unhappy - and, after a few days, make a statement reflecting on your mistakes, what you'd do differently, and how you understand the community's concerns (you don't have to agree with them, you just need to show that you've noted them and will avoid the behaviour that concerns others). If you can do that, I'd suggest you file a self-RfC - you'll get a lot of stick in the short term but if you can hold your tongue and not be too defensive you'll find you draw off quite a bit of the criticism. That way if you file an RfA in a few months, people will, on the whole, consider the issue dealt with and examine your otherwise excellent contributions since.--Doc^g 14:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA close

Hi Cla68 - Thank you for responding to my Q7 in your RfA. Your RfA closed 2-1/2 hours after your Q7 response, so I was unable to reply in the RfA. Since the RfA is closed, the point seems moot. If there is anything to be taken away from your RfA is that SlimVirgin and Mantanmoreland do not seem to think that you are trustworthy and they still feel hurt. I do not know Mantanmoreland, but have seen enough of SlimVirgin's posts to know that she is honest in expressing what she believes. Other than deleting the diffs, there isn't much else that can be done about the past. In the end, it comes down to that some people still feel hurt by what happened and you are in a position help resolve their feelings. Jimbo put it best in early March 2007 when he indicated that Wikipedia is built on us trusting each other and on human understanding and forgiveness of errors.[1] I think that your efforts to generate understanding were not well received because trust needs to come first. If you work on repairing SlimVirgin and Mantanmoreland's trust in you, there eventually may be understanding and then perhaps forgiveness. Best wishes. -- Jreferee 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

USS Lexington (CV-16)

Hello. Someone today took exception to a bit of text you added back in December. Please see also their comments on the talk page. I guess what would be nice is reverifying that was the text from the book? Shenme 00:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Page protection requests

Hi there, I just noticed your request for page protection posted to WP:ANI. You should probably file at WP:RFPP. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Actually, I said that there "appears to be a pattern." I know that she banned User:ManEatingDonut in the middle of a content dispute. I have seen it alleged in other cases, but I haven't the time to investigate the other cases, plus it is difficult to communicate with banned users. I suppose I could remove the phrase, or modify it. What would you recommend? --NathanDW 05:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

civility

hey, please quit being an enormously sensitive fag, fag. xoxo, 69.143.136.139 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't be coy. If you have something to say, like "HEY I'M GONNA BAN YOU", please do so. Ambiguous "warnings" are a waste of both of our time. 69.143.136.139 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

POV

It seems from your talk page and some of your recent interactions with users that you are a sort of pov-crusader. This may or may not surprise you, but I'd ask that you at least consider it. If several people are suggesting it may be true, chances are they aren't claiming it from a vacuum. It would make me happy if you could be sensitive to the fact that, no matter how noble you think your intentions are. After all, you're not working on the encyclopedia for your own benefit, it matters what your peers and readers think.

Food for thought. 17.255.240.146 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I find your post to be somewhat cryptic. The only big conflicts I've really had with others that I remember have been over the issues surrounding my involvement with the Gary Weiss article. As far as POV conflicts, I've debated some other editors on a few article talk pages, but then I usually go away after stating my point and don't engage in edit wars. So, I'm not sure what you mean. I suspect you don't like something I said somewhere. If you want to be more specific, then maybe we can discuss exactly what is bothering you. Cla68 02:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How about recent history, then, to clear up some ambiguity... The above user's complaint about "western imperialism," which you outright dismissed. What brought this to mind was my own personal experience with your addition of "machine gunning survivors." Two blatant, clear, expressions of point-of-view by way of spin. I left it intentionally ambiguous so you wouldn't be so stupid as to assume it was limited to just one or two occasions. Of course, having pointed this out, and called you on it, I suspect you'll respond in the same manner as the unfortunate "fag" comments above. Perhaps you need to re-evaluate what it is you are contributing here. Especially in light of the fact that the cabal has already taken you to task for it on your recent RFA. Lastly, as it is the common tactic to call people such as myself a troll (because we haven't built personal shrines to ourselves in user space and do not frequently deign to interact with other users), I'll encourage you to keep an eye on my contributions, and on the contributions of other anonymous users who take the time to speak up. Because I disagree with you and dislike your attitude and contributions, does not necessarily label me as such. In fact, I very well could be another user with thousands of contributions, and simply not logging in. So, consider what I say, not how I say it.

If, that is, you are capable. Ball, your court, et cetera. 17.255.240.146 01:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your response is civil and doesn't look like trolling to me, so I won't responding in the way that you suggest that I might. I'm usually more than willing to discuss my reasoning behind the edits that I make, because I don't have any secret agendas and don't have anything to hide when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. If you look at the articles that I've been heavily involved with (listed on my "personal shrine" page), you'll notice that I try to show both sides of the event. My purpose is to present the subject in a way that doesn't hide anything. Jimbo Wales discussed this very issue recently in an interview with the Japan Times ([2]) in which he describes how articles about the same thing in different languages' Wikipedias sometimes present different sides on the same subject. I try to present both, thus my comment about considering that Japan might have a point in considering Western actions in Asia early in the 20th century to be "imperialism" and the fact that U.S. warplanes strafed survivors from a sinking Japanese warship (which is, of course, cited to a credible source). In the Battle of Edson's Ridge, I also point out that the Japanese tortured and killed several Marine prisoners that they captured (in one of the footnotes). So, I'm not favoring either side, just trying to get out the complete story, which, obviously makes some uncomfortable. Cla68 02:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography 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 BetacommandBot 18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)

The user User:Heatedissuepuppet‎ has been editing your summary of the article (which I felt was a fair representation of the article contents) to remove mention of Metropolis (he is an anti-Metropolis troll, see his history). I felt that rather than have an unbalanced intro that the entire summary you added would be better removed for now. If, however, you would like to put it back in I would not object. Sparkzilla 00:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I rarely engage in edit wars with someone. I usually just wait a month or two then go back and correct whatever that particular POV-pusher was trying to do. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. I think that I'll leave a comment on the article's talk page, though, to build a foundation on the issue for the future in case the disagreement escalates. I personally think that the Metropolis/Japan Today reporting on the issue is notable because it was that publication that "broke" the story on the numerous inconsistencies in Baker's advocate's claims about his case. I believe I'm a neutral third party, because I don't have any connection to Metropolis even though I live in Japan. As a "foreigner" living in Japan, of course I've followed his case with interest as well as the perception of how the Japanese justice system treats "foreign" accused. In fact, I recently started an article about Michael Brown (United States Marine Corps officer). Cla68 02:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Our apparently shared experience in attempts to nuke us as "wordbomb"

Hi Cla68, I just got accused via a formal checkuser of being "wordbomb". i notice a friend of this aaccuser also obliquely tried to pin the wordbomb scarlet A on you as well by trying to say you were from Utah. Coy that one. Any ideas on how to edit any articles that he who cannot be named except on holier-than-all-of-us's userboxes has also edited without getting framed and banned? Piperdown 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Some in this community really don't like whoever this Wordbomb user was. I believe, however, that "they're" overreacting by falsely accusing other editors of being Wordbomb. This issue needs to be discussed by the community and "put to bed" so that we can move-on in improving the project without spending so much time dealing with these distractions. I'll probably start an RfC as soon as I can get the text of it drafted. Since you're now involved, I think your endorsement of the RfC would be valid which is required to keep the RfC from being deleted. If you're willing or able to join it, I'll let you know before I post it. Cla68 00:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno if I'll be commenting on any RFC's since my first comments on one garnered me a frivolous checkuser. Requester even lied about my edit patterns being the same as "wordbomb". Interesting argument, as that banned user has no edit patterns to compare. Talk about a Catch-22, I've seen this sort of complicated framing in movies and now on wikipedia. I'll probably chime in on such an effort, have the utmost respect for your editing history. Perhaps they can run a checkuser on both of us. Is Utah a town in Japan, or do some admins just think other people won't question their B.S.? Piperdown 00:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand. We'll see how it goes. I'd rather discuss this whole situation in an RfC rather than a post on the Community Noticeboard, because an RfC would exist as its own page that I could reference whenever anyone brought up the subject, like what happened on my RfA. Thank you for the compliment on my edit history. I spend a lot of time trying to take articles to FA-level quality and time spent defending my involvement in the Gary Weiss situation or countering false accusations (could it be as someone stated on WP:AN/I "It's the sound of axes busily grinding?") detracts from that effort. Cla68 00:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Quote

Sure, it's fine by me. Everyking 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Crisscross merge proposal

I wonder if you would be so kind as to make a comment regarding the proposed merge of Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) and Crisscross. Discusion is here: Talk:Crisscross. Sparkzilla 11:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Melbourne

I just noticed you added it to your user page. It was announced a week or so ago that its going to be the production base for The Pacific, the successor to Band of Brothers and most of the shooting will be done in other parts of Australia. From what they'e said, it looks like the story will focus on the 1st Marine Div.Grant | Talk 15:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to checking it out when it gets shown here on Japanese cable TV. I was in Melbourne on a work trip so I didn't get to see as much of it and the surrounding area as I wanted to. Cla68 22:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your FPC

Seeing your nomination for Fatured Picture, I thought you might want to support your own nomination - I don't think you'd have nominated an image you didn't like! :) J Are you green? 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Bud Holland's DOB

I got his date of birth from the Social Security Death Index. There are only two "Arthur A. Holland"s in the index. One of them (SSN 225-72-0756, issued in Virgina) has "24 Jun 1994" a the date of death. There is no real doubt it's him. You can add a note of that source to the article if you think it is appropriate. http://ssdi.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi

66.24.243.60 07:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) Request for Comment

A RfC has been started regarding the use of sources (including Metropolis) as "exceptional claims" on the above article. As an previously interested party, your input would be most valued. Comment Talk:Nick_Baker_(prisoner_in_Japan)#Request_for_comments. Thank you. Sparkzilla 06:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 15 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article USS Iowa turret explosion, 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.

--Carabinieri 22:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on this article! Kudos, to you sir! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

contact

Contact is a new service and honor the milhist project has introduced. I want to suggest you as a possible contact. Could you please name some subjects you are quite familiar with and willing to help(answer questions, reviews) within our scope. Wandalstouring 10:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident Peer Review request

Hi Cla68,

I noticed you listed Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan#Peer review requests. I apologize if the instructions there were unclear. The purpose of that list is to inform editors who work on Japan-related articles of relevant peer-review requests that have already been submitted to Wikipedia:Peer review. Since this article has not been submitted there, I removed it from the list, but I encourage you to submit it to WP:PR according to the nomination procedure and list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan#Peer review requests again. (If, like me, you find editing tables tedious, you probably already know it's easy to copy and paste from an old version.)

I've added to the instructions and hope they're more clear now. Since it's a wiki, you can of course edit them too.

The article looks interesting and I wish you success in getting a peer review.

Best regards,

Fg2 00:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Unrestricted Warfare (book)

Since you are an expert in military history, I wonder if you might have an opinion as to the article on this book. Is being used as a truncheon to beat up on George Soros, but apart from that I wonder if the book is sufficiently notable as to warrant its own article. I am suspicious by the lack of a prominent publisher, and the sensationalist claims being made. --Samiharris 16:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for helpful reply and suggestions. --Samiharris 22:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)