User talk:Cla68

This user demands flagged revisions NOW.

User:Cla68/Article draft work page

Looking for sources

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

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

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

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

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

Fred Moosally

My book about the USS Iowa should arrive soon, and next week I can work more on reviewing the article. I still need to look around for other sources. Unfortunately, my time available for working on Wikipedia has been very limited (and I'm not available this weekend). But, this is a top priority of mine. Regards. --Aude (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. The problem I often encounter with used books sellers is that they seem to like to save 5 cents by using book rate postage, which means that it may take several weeks for the book to arrive. Cla68 (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hey, Cla68, I've got a request. Would you be able to add a section to the Yamato class battleships on the symbolic nature of the warships within Japan at the time from the sources you possess? Once that particular aspect of the article is complete, I think that the class page is nearly ready for an FAC. Cam ^(Chat) 02:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, as a quick start I can copy over some sourced material from the Ten-Go article. Later, I'll check Kaigun and few other books for more info. Cla68 (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

TFA

It happened that there was a spot that Raul654 announced would not be filled due to the subject matter and the date, and I seized the opportunity to add USS Iowa turret explosion to the tfa counter. Since your the man behind the article's FA status, I felt it only fair to inform you so you could add your two cents to the tfa request page. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good call to add the article when you saw the opportunity. Cla68 (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is worth 2 points, but Wehwart informs me that we can add another point to the if you co-sponsor. Thought you might like to know :) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of press coverage, here (3/16/2009 post) is an announcment that KLTV will be doing a story on the event. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Article of interest?

This article seems like it has your name written all over it.--Looper5920 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about it. Because this incident happened where it happened, not as much information may be forthcoming about it as if it had occurred near the US. We'll see. Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Capture of Fort Ticonderoga

You were kind enough to support Capture of Fort Ticonderoga in its MILHIST A review. I've listed it at FAC; appreciate your comments. Thanks! Magic♪piano 23:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Making difficult edits

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

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

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

Thanks

Thank you for your changes to and comments on Australian light destroyer project. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Muar

Hello Cla68. I'm interested in looking for someone to monitor our edits on the Battle of Malaya articles. There are a couple of us interested in improving this area. Would appreciate any help or just keeping an eye out on these articles so we can get them up to standard quickly. If you can find the time to help that would be brilliant. thanks. Tristan benedict (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a huge help, thank you mate. I won't ask you to send me the electronic copy of Hayashi's book just yet as i am living in Zimbabwe at the moment (very, very slow downloading in this country). When i next go down to South Africa i will warn you so you could send it then. I will be in touch if i need any help soon. Thanks again. Tristan benedict (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Scott Waddle

You wrote here: And yes, I am canvassing off-wiki for support for the deletion. Is there a chance you are going to clarify that comment? JoshuaZ (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, he posted about an AFD off wiki he likes to see deleted. WR == off wiki. spryde | talk 20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was publicizing the AfD off-site. When it comes to BLPs on marginally notable subjects which I feel are subject to abuse, I am willing to openly canvass for support for their deletion. Wikipedia has a serious problem with the way its currently structured regarding these types of article, and there doesn't currently seem to be an imminent fix. Cla68 (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Charming. I've brought the matter up at ANI. [1]. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Formal warning - do not canvass

You know that your actions here were in violation of WP:CANVASS - you admitted you're doing it.

That's not acceptable behavior. It's violating that policy and intentional disruption.

Please stop that immediately and do not do it again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.

[2] [3]. I'll post this at ANI also. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hrs

You were warned above that your canvassing was violating WP:CANVASS and disruptive. After that warning was made, you intentionally did it again on another article.

You have been blocked from editing for 48 hrs.

I don't know why you chose to do this - it's not helpful to your cause of trying to move community policy against marginal BLPs. All you're doing is increasing drama by having done this. Please don't continue this type of escalation. It's heat without light - not helping solve the problem you claim you want to solve.

If you will agree to knock it off and continue editing / nominating / etc without violating WP:CANVASS or other policy then I'm sure that I and other editors will be happy to reduce the block length. But if you're going to keep intentionally breaking policy and disrupting the community, this is not going to help you or your causes.

Please reconsider your course here. This was unnecessarily confrontational and not at all useful or constructive to your goals. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hrs in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

{{unblock|I carefully read the CANVASS policy, and it mentions using secret means, such as email, as prohibited. The policy mainly addresses on-wiki canvassing, and mentions off-wiki only in passing, and doesn't mention off-site, openly accessible forums, like Wikipedia Review. According to how the CANVASS policy is currently written, my post was not a violation.}}

++Lar: t/c 04:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: YellowMonkey actually did the unblock, I think while I was posting this or thereabouts. ++Lar: t/c 04:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. How long until the autoblock expires? Cla68 (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually: undone. Viridae^Talk 05:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not many MILHIST folks made a fuss. Disappointing. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume that they were all busy actually writing some articles. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I really wish I'd gone to that AfD and voted against your position (I looked into it -- I think a Google Books and Google Scholar search shows plenty of detailed coverage of this guy's decision to apologize, and while dependent on the original event, the decision to apologize was the focus of enough of that detailed coverage to move it out of WP:BLP1E status). Anyway, welcome back to the land of the unblocked. -- Noroton (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• If Wikipedia had a decent system for protecting BLPs on barely famous people, it wouldn't bother me to have these articles. Cla68 (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• @Noroton, you still can vote keep. I did. Why would you not be able to? ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Waddle is now closed as Keep. Too late. -- Noroton (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, my mistake. It's now a redirect. If enough information were added along the lines I mentioned just above, it would be too much for the larger article and would need to be recreated. -- Noroton (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

United we stand [4].--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

for the record, I disagree with Lar,and Yellow Monkey, and if you canvass again in this manner, I shall certainly block you. When you say that you did not object to the articles in particular, but canvass to delete it because you wanted to make a protest about the current BLP policy, I think that aggravates the situation considerably. WP:POINT.

To close as non-consensus and redirect is a very strange close. since it is not supported by policy, it amounts to nonconsnsus keep, and the person decision to redirect. anyone can of course revert it. DGG (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, fortunately for me and you I've already nominated all of the minor BLPs that I created that I think should be deleted. I encourage you to do the same if you've created any. I also encourage you to use whatever policy-allowed means available to help get them deleted, such as posting announcements about it in whatever off-wiki forum you want to. Until Wikipedia gets some system installed to effectively protect these articles from abuse, they need to be deleted. Please be part of the solution, not the problem. Cla68 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks, Rancourt and basic conception of the English language.

You've already had it explained to you in the Rancourt section above why you are utterly wrong about this matter. I'm going to repeat this one more time to see if you can understand it. Jewish is not the same thing as Israeli. The content I included was in regard to the well-sourced comments Rancourt made about the Israeli lobby, not claimed remarks about the Jewish lobby which were added by other users and was never in any draft of the article I ever touched. The sentence that I kept in was of course well-sourced and is still in the article. I understand that you'd like to see me as the evil incarnation of BLP violations but that's simply not the case. Continuing to conflate Jews with Israelis is offensive to a great many people and your continued remarks about the Rancourt matter border on personal attacks. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're right that I went to far with that comment. I apologize and will line through it. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm pleasantly surprised. I suppose the next obvious question is whether you are going to comment at all in the WR thread clarifying that the entire thread is based on basic factual errors? Or do incorrect statements about living people with zero truth only matter if they are article subjects and not if they are in googlable fora? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I just read your attempt to "apologize" in the AfD and I have to ask, what about the statement do you not necessarily agree with? Do you think that Jew=Israeli or do you think that I somehow edited the article using time a machine? Maybe I did edit the article then and then the edits were oversighted? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you on the wording issue, what I'm saying is that you should have listened to Smash the State's argument that the information was dubious. As I'm sure you're aware, BLPs on marginally notable individuals are often abused in Wikipedia, which is why we shouldn't have any. When someone comes along and says that the information in one is wrong, we need to consider it carefully. I was apologizing for bringing that up without context in the AfD discussion. It wasn't necessary or helpful for me to do so. Cla68 (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That I should have listened to him about what information? I never had a chance to look at the article after the questionable information about Rancourt using the phrase "Jewish lobby" was added. The information he removed when I was involved with the article was "Israel lobby" where it was well-sourced. There was never any strong argument against that phrase. I listened to him, decided he was wrong, as did most other editors. What should I have done differently? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess we're going to have to disagree on this one, as it's a judgement call. I would not have reflexively reverted Smash's removal of the material, instead I would have talked to him about it and asked him in more detail how he happened to know that the information was untrue. I did that here. In this case, once I ascertained that the anonymous poster appeared to know what he/she was talking about, I removed the material even though I probably could have been obstinate and kept insisting that the material in question was supported by a reliable source. This kind of thing is even more important in BLPs, since they are, unfortunately, the target of so much abuse because of Wikipedia's lack of any kind of effective process to manage them. Cla68 (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, you are aware that is argument against the phrase was due to claims of undue weight not a sourcing a problem? And that in the 3RR warning I asked him to discuss the matter? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I, of course, looked at the edits in question, and his first objection was that the material, in his opinion, implicated the article's subject in a crime. Cla68 (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I again have to wonder whether we are looking at the same article history [5]. Smashthestate brought up the issue of possible crimes related to the phrase "Jewish lobby" not the phrase "Israel lobby" (and again, Jewish lobby was added by another user and I never looked at or edited the article between when that phrase was added and when the sourcing was found to be bad). In multiple edit summaries he referred to undue weight. Incidentally, the editor who also reverted Smash was Scott [6]. I'd be curious if you think this is a sign that he's not paying enough attention to BLP issues... JoshuaZ (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You were the one that warned Smash about 3RR on his talk page. Once a warning is given out, it raises the tension of the dispute considerably. I don't know if you're currently an admin or not, but if you are, that warning is more serious. Cla68 (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

He had gone over 3RR. So the problem is now that I raised the temperature? What does that even mean? I asked him to talk about the issue on the talk page, something he was not doing. And if I were an admin(I'm not) that would be utterly irrelevant given that admins have no authority over disputes they are involved in. Also, given your lack of address of the issue, am I correct in presuming that you agree that Smash never made any claim that the content which Scott and I were keeping in the article was in any way an allegation of criminal activity? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Smash ever accused you guys of defaming the article's subject, just getting in the way when he tried to remove it. If he thinks that 3RR doesn't apply to removing libelous information, how is he supposed to react when he gets such a warning? Cla68 (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So do we now need to pussy-foot around every single claim someone makes about libel regardless of its basic in fact? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to BLPs on marginally notable people? Yes! If an editor blanks the page, repeatedly reverts, or gets angry when we revert them, we need to calmly inquire, to ask why. Of course, it would be better if we just deleted all such articles. The Denis Rancourt episode is one example of why this is so. Cla68 (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The term "marginally notable" seems to be getting broader and broader every day. I don't know under what definition Rancourt is marginally notable. He's a very well-known and controversial figure. Not known to Cla68 =/= marginally notable. Moreover, the vast majority of libel claims we get here are simply nonsense. Obviously we examine them but that doesn't mean we need to pretend they have merit when they don't. In this particular case, Scott had already looked at the material and decided there was no BLP problem. I don't always agree with Doc Glasglow but you can be pretty sure that if he thinks there's no BLP problem then there damn well isn't a BLP problem. Frankly, I have zero understanding of how you think this supports the notion that marginally notable BLPs should be deleted... JoshuaZ (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Marginally notable does need a generally accepted definition. Obviously, "not known to me" is not correct since two of the BLPs I nominated under this description were created by me. The third came from the central figure in an FA I helped write. By the way, the other BLP I nominated for deletion recently is here. Cla68 (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of that thank you. I haven't made up my mind about Gus Kohntopp and so have not yet commented on it. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the AfD for Gus Kohntopp

I wanted to say that while I disagree with you on this specific, I have enormous admiration for the work you've done to help the project. I'm aware that you have significant standing to nominate this page for deletion, and I respect what you're doing. I just can't agree with the arguments you've offered. Best of luck, and please feel free to call on me if I can ever be of assistance. BusterD (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate the kind words. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of Kure (July 1945)

Hi Cla, Do you have any sources on this topic? I'd really like to expand the article, but amazingly little seems to have been written on it. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've looked into the sources on the US bombing campaign against Japan and was surprised to find that there apparently is no, "definitive" tome that covers the entire topic. Instead there are books on different aspects of it. I listed all the references that I could find here, none of which I currently possess. Unfortunately, the US Army official history of the campaign hasn't been uploaded to the Hyperwar site yet, there's only a placeholder for it there. The only book I have right now on the topic is this one (B-29 Hunters of the JAAF) and an article from World War II history magazine about Curtis LeMay. Cla68 (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I should have looked more closely at the article, it's not about the B-29 raids. I think I have Frank's Downfall book and that's it. I'll check to see what other info I have. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

USS Iowa Turret explosion TFA

Earlier today, I scheduled the USS Iowa Turret Explosion article for April 19 as you requested. However, a few hours later an OTRSer emailed me asking me to reconsider, as there is an open OTRS ticket on a closely related (BLP) article, and featuring the turret explosion would very likely inflame the issue. I don't know yet what I'm going to do, but unscheduling it is a very real possibility. I'm giving you a heads-up in case that happens. Raul654 (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Keith Johnson

Thanks for the copyedit. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

notable examples of the military use of green

Hey Cla, I am trying to help Wrad push green toward FAC here at Talk:Green#within-sight-of-the-finish-line_peer_review_notes_to_go_here... with some final thoughts on comprehensiveness...and just remembered military use - any other notable ones beside green beret and green line? I am a neophyte on military stuff. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Iowa Turret explosion main page request

I sat down and looked over the Iowa Turret explosion, Fred Moosally, and Glimpse of Hell articles this morning. I also read the Moosally talk page and talked with Bastique about it in IRC. In short, I agree with you on basically everything.

I strongly disagree with suggestions that the article should be deleted. It would flatly contravene all existing notability rules and precedents to do so. I have also seen no evidence that Glimpse of Hell should be considered unreliable (Moosally's own self-serving criticisms of it aside, I've seen no evidence anywhere to suggest that the book is wrong. Moosally's court case did not achieve any finding of fact that the book was wrong, nor did the settlement include such an admission. In fact, the letter sent to him afterwards by the publisher seems carefully designed to avoid any such admission. And contrary to Aude's suggestion on the talk page, low sales figure do not impute any sort of unreliability.) Nor have I seen anything in the Moosally article that violates any of our policies - in fact, almost everything is double-sourced. In short, this case boils down to someone who doesn't like the fact that his biography paints the same unpleasant picture of him that reliable sources do.

With that said, I'm going to be unscheduling the Iowa turret explosion article from the main page. I don't usually explain these decisions, but in this case I feel that I owe you one. It wasn't an easy decision - the fact that it's the 20th anniversary of the explosion (and the 10th anniversary of the book) argue in favor of its selection for that day. So does the fact that, despite much hand wringing, as far as I can see both the Iowa Turrent explosion article and the Moosally bio are in full compliance with our policies. And I am loathe to let a self-serving BLP complaint (which, at least so far, seems to have no merit) cause the Turret explosion article not to be featured on the anniversary. On the other hand, the Moosally article is inextricably linked to the explosion article, which is why I don't think your compromise would help. Most importantly, I don't want to inflame the OTRS issue or make things harder for Aude than they already are. I'd be happy to put it on the main page once the she finishes reviewing the article. (Although when I asked Bastique for a time-frame for wrapping up the issue, he could not give me one. If that doesn't happen in a reasonable amount of time, I may reconsider.) Raul654 (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Cla68, and to make sure that everything I said on IRC gets reflected in context. I personally believe that Moosally is not notable enough to have an article and we would otherwise have no problem removing it. I also personally believe that you're an exceptional contributor to Wikipedia, and would regret to see all your hard work go waste. So it makes this a difficult situation, at best. Bastique ^demandez 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Raul, I appreciate your careful consideration of the issue and for taking the time to explain your decision. The real-life reactions to this and the Moosally article have been interesting. As you may have noticed in other discussions about the main article, soon after someone made this edit to the article's talk page, almost all of the images related to the explosion disappeared from the DoD's image database. Anyway, after Aude completes his/her review of the Moosally article and Thompson's book, hopefully we can renominate the article for main page listing on next year's anniversary. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess he did remove the turret explosion after all. So sad, it will be sometime before we will be able to get it back up. I guess all we can say is that we tried. - TomStar81 70.245.127.65 (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

recent example

while reading the discussion on the Mount Hebron page, i noticed that one of the parties to arbcom has continued (this week) to try to have the article say it is in "judea, an area in israel," even going so far as leaving out west bank entirely in one edit. i'm not posting to the case or evidence page, but i think this is relevant and thought you might want to include it in your section on him in the workshop or evidence pages. untwirl(talk) 18:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to present an evidence section, just note this on the talk page of the evidence page. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

frankly, i'm a bit afraid to get involved there. having interacted briefly with some of the prime offenders, i have no naivete about the methods that are used to effectively neutralize editors when they dare to protest. sorry if its odd for me contact you like this, i've been watching the case since it started and was surprised to see those edits while the case is in progress. its probably moot at this point anyway; i read that the arbs are drafting their decision. once again, sorry to intrude. good luck. untwirl(talk) 02:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In your comment on my talk page, you indicated that you are "afraid to get involved?" Do you find the editors in question intimidating? If so, I suspect (and hope) that after this arb case is over you won't have reason to feel threatened by them anymore. I'm going to note the edit you told me about somewhere in the case, perhaps on the Workshop page. Cla68 (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead of Martin Luther

It's not my style to revert something straight away, so I would appreciate your discussing your removal of a key issue from the lead. I know you say in your edit summary that it is a minor issue, but Luther's foremost biographer Martin Brecht says this: "his misguided agitation had the evil result that Luther fatefully became one of the 'church fathers' of anti-Semitism and thus provided material for the modern hatred of the Jews, cloaking it with the authority of the Reformer". That's not minor stuff. qp10qp (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You can revert it back if you like. I don't edit war and I don't take it personally if my article edits are reverted, it's part of the wiki process. I would opine that if you want his anti-semitic views mentioned in the intro, that you omit the reference to the Nazis. Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I should say that I didn't write this stuff myself, but I remember that that part was the result of an enormous amount of talk page discussion and quoting. The Nazis often used Luther as a justification for their policies against the Jews: this is not Luther's responsibility, but it is part of the story of his ideas. qp10qp (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the essay on Operation Charnwood

I like some of your changes to the wording of the essay but I question your removal of 'had' because your replacements are circumlocutions.Keith-264 (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I make mistakes sometimes in my copyediting. Please feel free to change back anything you don't agree with. Cla68 (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I do too. I try to make edits laconic but I also try to avoid repeating words, which sometimes means agonising over analogies. I'll leave yours alone because I know the feeling :o)Keith-264 (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG

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/Abd and JzG/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/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

VC

Were you thuinking of writing about the VC? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If I do, probably nothing much more than starting stubs right now. My "to do" list is long enough to keep me busy for awhile. Cla68 (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Muar sources

Thanks for all the book references mate, am looking for them now. Really appreciate all the help Cla. Tristan benedict (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your RFAR statement

Were you following the events with ScienceApologist very closely? I am his mentor, and the Committee's intrusion into mentorship at that proposed decision brought me within a hair's breadth of resigning from all mentorships in protest. The attempt politicized mentorship to an intolerable level. By no means would I suggest imposition of supervised editing in this or any other remedy, unless it has full willing consent of all parties. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it wash behind the ears. Durova^Charge! 00:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make a note of that in my statement. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 01:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I/P articles

As someone who has often talked about the difficulty of achieving neutrality, would you mind taking a look at this suggestion? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I commented. Cla68 (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I've started a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. Please feel free to edit it. I'd appreciate your input. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

Here's what I've learned about what WR is like.

FYI. -- Noroton (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Are you still on line? If so, can I ask you to correct/rewrite my English? Oda Mari (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I replied on my talk page. It's a new section in Cherry blossom, 'Culinary use'. Oda Mari (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I saw your copyedit and message. Try them. Sakuramochi is very tasty. It would be better to eat cake and the leaf at the same bite. But it might be difficult to find sakuramochi right now because it's a kind of a seasonal cake. ありがとう。Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat answered

I don't actually know the answer, but I posted some information on Rootology's talk page. It does not appear there was an ArbCom vote on the matter. Cool Hand Luke 05:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Many of those who discussed it no longer edit Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 14:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Roxana Saberi.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Roxana Saberi.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Óðinn (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A free image has been uploaded to Commons. Óðinn (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't delete the image since I'm not an admin, someone else will do it - I just notified you in case you should wish to dispute the speedy deletion request. Cheers! Óðinn (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work!

Your WWII featured articles are bad ass, man. Excellent job! I'd give you a barnstar for all of this, but it looks as if you've already received all of the essential ones. In regards to FAs, I'll have to catch up to you some day, considering how you have about twice as many featured articles under your belt than I do. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations also from me on the Battle of the Coral Sea article - your work on this article and creation of supporting articles was very impressive. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Piling on... Excellent Battle of the Coral Sea work! Congrats. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we want change?

I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Indian Ocean raid (1944)

Hi Cla, do you have any references on this operation? I recently created this article and am thinking of developing it to at least A-class standard. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have two books that have some information on the event:

• Mark Felton's Slaughter at Sea has one entire chapter on the Behar massacre.
• Eric Lacroix's Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War has some detail and background on the status and operations of the Japanese cruisers involved, but little detail on the actual operation itself. If you don't have access to either of these books, please remind me when you're ready and I'll go through and add any information from these two sources which seems to be helpful for completing the article. Cla68 (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Cla, does Lacroix have any additional information on the "Super A Type" Design B-65 cruisers that Google Books does not show? Thanks, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Those cruisers, with 12-inch guns, appear to be more like battlecruisers than normal cruisers. I'll check Lacroix and the other books I have on the IJN to see what information I can find. Cla68 (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you can just reply here (I have this page watchlisted ;). While they do look like BCs, Conway's says that "Super A Type cruisers" = heavy cruisers, and so I figured that it would be safer to put it at Design B-65 cruiser. Thanks for your help! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked through all of my IJN books, including Evan's Kaigun, Lacroix, Watts' IJN, and Jentschura's Warships and added some material. I believe the article now contains all of the information on those cruisers which is readily available in English sources. Please feel free to change around the text that I added to the article as you think appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! The only source I have that directly deals with the B-65's is Garzke and Dulin's two or two-and-a-half page blurb in the Yamato class chapter, so that was a great help. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly like to get it to FA, but I didn't think it was possible. What did you have in mind? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 17:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to add a background section about the "Decisive Battle" strategy and how that drove the proposed construction of these cruisers and their predecessors. After that, the article might need a little more detail on why they were canceled if you have that information. Hopefully, that should be sufficient. Cla68 (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be awesome; I know very little about that strategy, so it'll be a learning experience. :) G&D don't say anything about why the B-65's were canceled, but it says this in the Design A-150 section on page 85: "At this time [late 1941], war seemed imminent, and there was such a demand for aircraft carriers, cruisers and smaller ships that design work on battleships would never be resumed." Could that last sentence be applied in the B-65 article, you think? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Don't worry about time; B-65 can wait if you have more pressing article priorities. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 13:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2008 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point AV-8B crash

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 2008 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point AV-8B crash, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

non notable military accident no civilian casualties

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, it is only a proposed deletion you can just remove the notice in the article if you do not agree and I or somebody else can then raise it at AfD if it is thought still not to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your 3RR comment

A few points that I feel need to be said: (a) your posting of the 3RR item on my page, you were just as much a participant and I could have placed the same notice on your page...but didn't. Just saying. (b) you said that you were going to take the discussion to RFC, but didn't. It surprised me that I ended up doing it for you. A sidenote - I hope you feel that I presented the situation as neutrally and fairly as possible, just as you would have done I'm sure. If you do not feel that it was fair & balanced, believe me when I say that it was my intention to do so. (c) if you do feel that the consensus is leaning towards the exclusion of the names and are dropping your side of the discussion, if you could post an appropriate comment on the rfc section, that would be swell.

All that said, I will now assume any misunderstandings on that topic between you and I are now bygones/water under bridge and we can continue on our merry way. On the bright side, the good thing that is to come out of this is that a (hopefully, ultimately) definitive decision is to be made regarding similar situations that may arise in the future. For that, I thank you. I see that you spend much of your editing time in other content areas to much regard; if you have the time and an interest in assisting to improve any of the Disney-oriented articles along the way, you are more than welcome to join us. SpikeJones (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to post an RfC, but was going to do it later in the day, my (Japan) time, which probably meant that it would have been the next morning your time (I assume that you're in the US). I was pleasantly surprised when you beat me to it. I'll leave a comment in the RfC as suggested. I don't take personally most of the stuff that goes on in here, it's just a website. Keep up the good work. Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Just a website"?! My god, man.SpikeJones (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

re By The Way

Thanks for the offer. We've tried to get some of the film articles to Featured (user Alientraveller is a phenom at film stuff), but they always seem to fall apart a little bit due to fanboyz ruining stuff. I believe The Lion King made it to featured once upon a time. We've tried to keep the Pixar films as high-quality as possible (Up, Ratatouille, Wall-e being the better examples), as there appear to be more readily-citable material for those. If we were to concentrate on any, UP would be the one to start with since it's the most current and high profile...especially come Oscar season when it's expected to be one of the 10 nominated best feature films. We're going to run into issues with the Fall release of Princess and the Frog due to perceived controversy and political correctness edits. That one is not going to be fun. SpikeJones (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Want to be amused? Check out the lengthy and ongoing discussion taking place here: Talk:Andy_Murray#RFC:_How_should_Twitter_and_Fan_Sites_external_links_be_handled_for_Celebrity_Pages.3F and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Fansites_on_External_Links_in_Tennis_Articles.3F (both unlinked on purpose) SpikeJones (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

ACPD pages created

I've created two initial pages for the ACPD:

• Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development
• Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development/Forum

Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.

Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cla - For info, I think we're also expecting a list and/or scope from Arbcom. [7] --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That meant to say "as well".....Nothing stopping us piping up, but my view is it's likely more fuel for the RfC. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of 2008 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point AV-8B crash

I have nominated 2008 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point AV-8B crash, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point AV-8B crash. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. MilborneOne (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Swindle

I don't think there's any doubt that the movie goes against scientific consensus, which isn't the same thing as saying that it's wrong (although it probably is). As for my comments on the prevailing view (I avoided the word consensus) on the talk page, I was basing it largely on the discussion about Category:Denialism (in which even some of the editors opposed to inclusion of the category, including PolScribe and me, acknowledge that a scientific consensus exists. The subject is also discussed in several of the sections of Archive 5 (including the first two and the "Ofcom" section), and this section of the previous archive (in which User:Oren0, one of the more active and more reasonable anti-global warming editors, acknowledges that there's a scientific consensus on the question). I'm not saying it's a settled question, but I think that the statement is supported by reliable sources and by prevailing opinion on the talk page. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Anthony Watts

Per a request as part of the RfC you recently !voted in we have changed the style of !voting. Please review those updates and make any changes to your !vote, as appropriate/desired. Thanks for your participation. --GoRight (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

sock policy page

Hi, I see you've been cleaning up: are you going to narrow the policy so that it discourages alt accounts as much as possible? Tony (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to, I just haven't figured out how to word it yet. Any ideas? Cla68 (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Aitias

Along with another editor, I have been preparing an RFC on Aitias, as it's clear his numerous inappropriate actions are exhausting community patience. He has clearly learnt little, if anything from either his first RFC or RFAR. I'll let you know when it's up. We were going to wait until the Eric Barbour thread closed before proceeding. Majorly talk 00:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll cross out what I proposed and will participate in the RfC. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, too late. Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aitias 2. Majorly talk 16:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for this. Acalamari 01:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Not here to build an encyclopedia

Thought you might be interested in this new wikipedia space page that FT2 just posted. Made me think of you.[8] Cool Hand Luke 03:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for remembering that incident :). Cla68 (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How to avoid accusations of meatpuppetry

I saw your comment on the meatpuppetry GoRight page. I unfortunately don't know enough to say anything useful there, but I noticed your concerns. Two things to consider:

1. Scibaby has hundreds of socks, and is a huge pain, so he is often reverted on sight. He also brings up the same old topics again and again. Ergo everyone is annoyed.
2. If you have something to include that you think is valid but are worried that it is too close to a scibaby comment, or are reverting to something that he/she did, just leave a note on talk as to why you independently think it is good. Others may disagree but that should cover you. (FYI though most scibaby edits have been argued against before.)
3. I don't think you have much to worry about as you appear to be a very good-faith editor; if anything comes up and your actions haven't significantly changed, I will happily defend you. But because of your good-faithed-ness, I doubt anything will come up.

Awickert (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion

Your suggestion at RS/N to contact the Chinese language bulliten boards was a good one. We located a Chinese speaker who has provided us with a wealth of useful info and translations. Now, for a request: do you know of similar bulliten boards for Russian speakers? --Coleacanth (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)