User talk:Commodore Sloat

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful

• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Village pump
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 01:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

testing csloat 03:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) hey cool; thanks!

Sayed Qutb vrs. Sayyid Qutb

Should I move it myself, or would you like me to walk you thru it? Have you read wikipedia:redirect? Sam [Spade] 18:46, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Either way; I'm not sure what to do myself. Do I just copy one to the other? I'll give it a shot....--csloat 19:49, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You copy and merge the content, and replace the article being redirected w a redirect link to the new article. Go ahead and try it, and I'll keep an eye. Don't worry, you won't break anything that can't be fixed ;) Sam [Spade] 19:55, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I did it right; check it out.

You sure did! Good work, my man :) Sam [Spade] 07:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Iraqi Resistance

Hiya, thanks for your input into Iraqi Resistance. It's a pity you have about as much time as me to deal with such problems. By the way you can sign and date your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end in case you didn't already know. Cheers. —Christiaan 22:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I did know about that but I don't always remember to do it. Yeah I wish I had more time to deal with this kind of problem, but it will be endless - especially when dealing with people like this one, who seems to have all the time in the world to keep making his case.--csloat 08:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey send us an email C: [1]

Thanks for your help on the Iraqi insurgency article. ~ Dpr 18:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Dear contributor, first I would like to say a big thank you for your time, care, and enthusiasm in editing Wikipedia articles. I hope you find it just as much fun as I do.

I am writing with a small suggestion. I wonder if you could write an edit summary every time you make changes to an article (or when you start a new one). Even a short summary helps. To see how often you have done so in the past, you may go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=YOUR USERNAME.

Edit summaries are important for a number of reasons. Every time you change an article, a record of that change propagates to every single person who has that article on their watchlist. Most people have an article on their watchlist because they care a lot about it, so they would like to be informed about what is going on with it. Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. This is why your edit summary, which will take you maybe 15 seconds, is a time-saver and a great act of candor to the other people interested in the same article as you. Accurate edit summaries are important because they create trust regarding your contributions and help resolve disputes.

There are other, very convincing reasons for putting an edit summary. More information is available at Wikipedia:Edit summary. If at any point you have any questions about this rule (or anything else for that matter), please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you and happy editing! Hyacinth 20:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Counterpunch/Saddam

If Counterpunch cites the New York Times, make reference to the Times, not to an opinion outlet with no authority of its own. Everything in that article might be true, but citing it directly in the article does not help Wikipedia's image, as it'll give readers the impression that Wikipedia is getting its information from the leftwing "alternative media"-- an easy way of provoking an unnecessary ideological flamewar. As a general practice, sources like Counterpunch should be avoided. 172 19:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is the LAT & NYT articles cited are from the early 1990s, and not available on the web. I suppose this could be cited in a normal (i.e. print-like) footnote, but it's not so easy to do that for a one sentence claim such as this in wikipedia. And if the claim is put in without a link to a source there will be a dozen pro-Reagan wikipedians down my throat for an unsubstantiated claim. I agree a less obviously biased source is preferable. But the claim should not be deleted just because you don't like the political leanings of the magazine. --csloat 19:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hardly mind their political leanings at all, but it's just not an authoritative source used in professional research. My advice is find out Counterpunch's source, verify it, and include it in the article with a footnote. No link to Counterpunch has to be provided. Otherwise, you'd probably have to deal with a bunch of riled up Reaganites eiter without a source or with a link to a left-leaning publication. 172 22:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, when you deleted the passage you said counterpunch is "left wing propaganda", so it did sound like you minded their political leanings. And certainly counterpunch has never produced lies or distortions that I am aware of, so it is not like they have a track record for inaccuracy or shoddy journalism. I don't have a problem with the source being used, any more than any other opinion journal (Washington Times, the Nation, National Review, etc.). But in any case I think you're right that an NYT cite is more credible; when I get time I'll look for it (or feel free to do so yourself, rather than just deleting the whole reference). --csloat 00:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Phony Texan Warmongers

As per your request on the WP:VFD page for Category:Islamofascists, Category:Phony Texan Warmongers has been created. By the way, categories should be listed on WP:CFD, no WP:VFD. Best wishes. LevelCheck 20:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this a joke? I did not request this.--csloat 20:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

False Accusations and Your Bad Faith

Kindly remember Wikipedia policy on operating in good faith, and stop making false accusations as well as pushing POV in pointless revert wars. The section Jihad as of 80.58.4.42's version (before BrandonYusufToropov's POV pushing) are much better formatted and NPOV balanced as fits Wikipedia policy.Enviroknot 22:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No it's not. The whole point of your edits (which are the same as 80.etc because you're probably the same person) is to claim that there is just one view in the Muslim world and it's the same as bin Laden, basically. It's a stupid argument and if you really believed it you would make the argument on the discussion page where it belongs rather than on my user page. --csloat 22:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you csloat, there has been a recent plague of POV vandalism by enviroknot in the Jihad article. It is good to see that these acts are being reverted.--Anonymous editor 02:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I am a sockpuppet of nobody, and do not edit as anything but myself. If anyone else is reverting you, it's because they are following wikipedia policy and reverting your POV nonsense.Enviroknot 03:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please look at the compromise version I posted and discuss each edit you want to revert on the appropriate talk page rather than reverting everything. csloat 04:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sarcasm

Never mind, I was being a little sarcastic. I find it interesting that some people who would start name calling so easily always keep their sacred cow, however ancient and mythical, untouched. -- Toytoy 04:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Admin warning #1

You made some personal remarks (about me, but that's besides the point):

Ed you have a lot of nerve accusing others of bad faith when you keep pretending to be an idiot here in order to push your pov. How many times does the obvious need to be explained to you? The tangential allegations do not merit a second article. They arose as an obvious PR ploy by the Pentagon to respond to the Newsweek fallout. They should be included in one sentence in this article -- not in the intro and certainly not as something that implicitly "balances out" the charges against the US. There's no need for a separate article and there's no need for more than a few words on the topic because it is a red herring attempting to distract attention away from the charges of US abuse of the Quran. As another user noted; you are proposing a malicious fork, and it is really disingenuous for you to then threaten others with reports of bad faith. --csloat 21:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please note the underlined phrases.

Remarks like these are in violation of our official policy described in Wikipedia:no personal attacks. For hints on how to get back into compliance with policy, try Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks.

Is this a joke? Please get real. Deal with the arguments, don't whine about personal attacks. I do think your claims have been disingenuous; the underlined things up there are not personal attacks; they were meant to respond to your claim that people were acting in bad faith - I believe it was you acting in bad faith, and I expressed that. If you want to report me, let a third party take a look at the comments in context and reprimand me if they like; I believe anyone looking at your input onto that talk page will understand that I am trying to be reasonable about this (along with everyone else piping up on that page) while you are continually making disingenuous comments.csloat 22:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Admin warning #2

You wrote:

No, you're not, and I can only conclude you're doing that on purpose. The Wikipedia should mention the alleged prisoner mishandling but it should not make it the central focus of the introduction. Stop pretending you don't understand and stop threatening people on Wikipedia. --csloat 22:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This your second warning. When you accuse another user like that (see underlined phrases above), you are violating the policy detailed in Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

When you rack up enough violations, the arbcom will probably come by and give you a warning or probation or something. Wouldn't it be better to take a look at Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks? You're a good writer and could contribute a lot if you'd stick to the article. Cheers. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, please. I have not made any personal attacks at all. I am simply responding to the claims you have been making. You are threatening me right here and I am asking you to stop; it is bizarre to interpret that as a personal attack. My perception that you are being disingenuous is not a personal attack. So please stop accusing me of personal attacks -- should I put Admin Warnings on your user page because you're accusing me of personally attacking you? Do you see how silly this is? Now please stop putting this junk on my page.--csloat 22:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enough, both of you! I don't believe you personally attacked Ed, but I can see how he might have misconstrued that you were having a go at him. I've left a message on Ed's page also, telling him this. My suggestions is to assume good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An olive branch

LOL, I can't believe you reverted Kizzle's deletion of my summary at S & aQ. Did you actually like my summary? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

It was definitely better than your previous edits :) --csloat 20:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

There's an rfa concerning you here. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I see you've withdrawn it. I assume that means you accept the points I made there, and will stop trying to claim that I am personally attacking you, that I am trying to enforce a POV, etc.?csloat 23:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

cut & paste move

Greetings csloat. It looks like you made one of the most popular mistakes on Wikipedia: the cut&paste move. The trouble with c&p moves is that the page history is not kept. When someone looks at the history for the Oplan Bojinka page, they will not see the edits to the Operation Bojinka page. This is, strictly speaking, a violation of the GFDL. But people make this mistake every day -- don't worry about it, I'll fix it. (Update: it's fixed now.)

To correctly move a page, for future reference, see Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page.

Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 14:42, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! --csloat 19:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interested in an L.A.-area Wiki meetup?

It appears as though L.A. has never had a Wiki meetup. Would you be interested in attending such an event? If so, checkout User:Eric Shalov/Wikimeetup.

- Eric 06:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous editor on Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein

Thanks for your work in slaying this troll. One thing to note, though: I don't think his edits constitute vandalism (except the erasure and the duplication, but I'll assume those were mistakes unless he persists). They're POV and wrong-headed, but he believes them to be true and as such they don't yet have the intentional destructiveness necessary to call them vandalism. Thanks again, --Mr. Billion 2 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)

Yes I guess that was going too far - it's just that after a few reverts and without him responding in talk, it is indistinguishable from vandalism.... Is there another term for that particular kind of abuse? --csloat 2 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)

A more positive experience this time around, more or less

I'm quite happy that we managed to come to something more closely resembling agreement in the course of the mostly overheated exchange on the Derrida talk page, despite the rest of that discussion being rather thoroughly and unnecessarily unpleasant. Recalling that your comment that you taught courses on argumentation, I was chuckling to myself when the remark was made that there was only one person who could call himself a philosopher in the discussion and that none of us had any familiarity with formal argument. I was a lit disappointed by the snippiness of our prior exchange there and regret that it effectively foreclosed more substantive exchange; if you've got some background on Derrida and/or would be willing to consider taking the job of editor, have a look at the to-do list shaping up off of Talk:Deconstruction.

I'm intrigued about the kind of philosophical texts you use to teach courses on communications (that word immediately brings the Derrida/Searle debate to mind, given that Derrida opens "Signature, Event, Context" with some remarks on the word communications and discussion always seems to come back to questions about the conditions of possibility for communication). Could you point me to a syllabus? Cheers, Buffyg 4 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

I'll check it out. I don't have my syllabus for the argumentation course online though I could probably dig one up to email you; it's been a few years since I taught that course. But I used the Damer book as well as a book on argumentation by Malcolm O. Sillars, and I used Limited Inc., which of course is nothing if not an extended argument. A lot of people trained in classical argumentation theory react like our friend Mapro to deconstructive thinking, which many think is just BS or is intentionally obtuse. It gets tiring arguing with such people at conferences or on wikipedia for that matter since there is usually an unwillingness to even read the texts these people are criticizing. Anyway I've taught many more advanced courses in rhetoric and communication studies that utilize such texts; this graduate seminar in textual studies might interest you. I'll check out the deconstruction to-do list :) --csloat 5 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)

CSUN article

I re-added that sentence about the pornography at the CSUN library. It may not be 'of note', but it pertains to the campus. I think it is an interesting fact, and it could tie in to the San Fernando Valley's adult industry. --fpo July 8, 2005 20:22 (UTC)

I don't know where the porno is located. I would be interested in finding out though --fpo July 8, 2005 20:22 (UTC)

Then where did you get this information? If you put it in wikipedia I assume you have either seen it or have other reason to believe it exists.--csloat 8 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)

I didn't add it, User:66.229.215.102 did --fpo 18:27, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

It should be deleted unless there is some kind of corroboration. --csloat 18:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I will do a mass google search about it, trying to verify it sometime today or tomorrow. --fpo 23:01, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm suspicious. I've worked at CSUN for 11 years and never heard about this, and I've had colleagues in the Center for Sex Research (which is the only reason it sounded possibly credible to me). I doubt anything would come up on google but who knows. More likely they have a stash of old playboys or something - hardly a "massive pornography collection". --csloat 23:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I emailed the CSR, see if they reply. --fpo 01:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Can you please ...

... take a look at my work here, and perhaps add it to your watchlist? Many thanks, BrandonYusufToropov 13:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Update. User:Carbonite instantly reverted. BrandonYusufToropov 13:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you please ...

... take a look at my work here, and perhaps add it to your watchlist? Many thanks, BrandonYusufToropov 13:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Update. User:Carbonite instantly reverted. BrandonYusufToropov 13:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Derrida article vandalism

I reported it yesterday at Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress. Since it's occured again, I've requested Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Hopefully this moderate annoyance will go away shortly. Buffyg 09:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I was considering reporting it too since it had happened before. --csloat 11:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 48 hours. Given the irregular period between incidents, I have a suspicion that the problem may recur and require a longer ban.

Did you have any thoughts on my deconstruction to-do list? Buffyg 19:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I just saw this old note. I did when I looked at it; mostly I remember thinking, looks like a lot of work :) I thnk my Wikipedia-editing is mostly reactive; looking at the list makes me think of the things I am supposed to be working on in the non-wikipedia world. heh.. Anyway I'll keep an eye on some of those pages; I already am watching the ones I have some expertise in.--csloat 23:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

L.A. Meetup Reminder

Don't forget! L.A's first Wiki meetup is TONIGHT at 7:30 at Philippe's in Downtown. Check out the meetup page for details. See you there! (If you can't make it, come to the next one! - Eric 22:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Saddam/Al-Qaeda article

Hi, although we are at different points on the ideological spectrum, I was favourably impressed by your last response (in the thread about asking for a cite for a Bush quote). I'm interested in discussing the article further with you, but it's going to have to wait until after this latest renaming flap dies down.

(Frankly, I think trying to do the move was really foolish, because the name has been discussed to death - and beyond - and the current title, while not great, was at least vaguely acceptable to most factions. Any attempt to rename it again should have been preceded by a discussion to find an alterntive name that might be suitable; I suspect a lot of Zen-Master's suggestions, while not as condemnatory as some might like, might have been acceptable to people who opposed the "conspiracy theory" name.)

Anyway, this is by way of being a clue as to why I haven't responded yet. Hopefully the name thing will dry up, and we can get back to discussing the content of the article. (I had some other ideas there too, but again, the naming discussion has pre-empted then.) Noel (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

PPS: Thanks for the little thank-you note about the archiving, but no thanks are needed, really (it clearly needed doing, and I was happy to contribute to the general welfare by doing it). Do you mind if I move that comment to my personal Talk: page - it's not really germane to the article talk: page? Also, it looks like I need to do *another* archive run, to filter out the older topics on the talk: page... And now to ponder a reply to your note about conspiracy theories! Noel (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Islam poll

[2] I thought you might be interested in this . Farhansher 04:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

File:Herooflabor.jpg

I present to you this medal for your tireless efforts in the pursuit of truth, and the fight against right-wing propaganda. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep fighting the good fight, Commodore. Your efforts are crucial and have real importance in this information space. Thank you. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Seen [this]? Sigh. Tireless. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you have your hands full there. I am starting to think Wikipedia should disallow anonymous posting... Troublemakers should at least have to go through the trouble of getting a login id.

Hey I'm moving my award to the talk page. I appreciate the commendation, but I'm not too keen on having a hammer and sickle on my user page:) --csloat 07:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Plame Affair

Commodore, Please explain the reason for your Plame Affair revert on the Talk page. Thanks. Anonip 01:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I reverted nonsense. I explained on the talk page but I thought it was obvious. --csloat 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You thought wrong; please see my response on the talk page. Anonip 02:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism

User:Zephram Stark and his Merry Band of Sockpuppets has returned to reimpose his original reasearch into Terrorism. I've reached my revert limit, sockpuppets or no, and his obstnacy bordering on the delusional is really starting to piss me off. So you might want to take a look while I call it a night. --Calton | Talk 15:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Featured picture - comments requested

My photo of the bust of Antinous, currently under comment for featured picture

[3] I'm nominating one of my photos for 'featured picture'. Voting isn't for two days, but I'd appreciate your comments if you feel to add them. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)