User talk:Cla68

“ Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality. -Theodor Adorno ”

“ There is nothing more agreeable in life than to make peace with the Establishment - and nothing more corrupting. -A. J. P. Taylor ”

Word of the week: materteral. If you would like to participate, please go to the Word of the Week page.

Threat charges

One problem with Wikipedia's culture is the use of threats of administrative action, especially threats of blocks or bans to try to get editors to bend to the will of other editors. I do not think this is very conducive to a cooperative or collaborative editing environment. Thus, if I see any, I will impose a "threat charge" on the offending editor of five cents for implied threats and 10 cents for explicit threats. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Examples of some actual threats made in Wikipedia are listed below (without the account names of the editors who made them):

• Explicit threats-

• "On a personal note, looking at your editing record, you seem to be a somewhat inexperienced wikipedian editor. It is not a very good idea to continue pushing a point of view contradicted by multiple sources, unless you wish to be blocked indefinitely. This will happen very soon if you don't bother checking things."
• "One more post of this style and you're blocked. (Noting especially the taunting pattern of edit summaries)"
• "[Redacted], what is your response to that? An unsatisfactory response would cause me to be very cross. So cross that I might actually admonish you not to give unsatisfactory responses. Or worse."
• "If you like we can ask to have you added as a party."

• Implied threats:

• "Consider this an informal warning not to delete material peremptorily again. If there are repetitions I will request an official warning and enforcement."
• "You are being judged on the facts, which is why I expect we'll be rid of you in due course."

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)

Featured article repair

It's a shame that Attack on Pearl Harbor still needs repair. What do you think? Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's next on my list after me and Sturmvogel finish Akagi. I just ordered some books on it yesterday, and they may take a few weeks to arrive. I'll let you know when I get started on it. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal
		For prolific work on Fred Moosally, Battle of the Coral Sea and Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō, promoted to A-Class between January 2009 and December 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you have a cool user page.

What a bunch of articles you have done. I just came to read the FA article. My old man was in WW2 and even became a bit of a Nippophile (is that a word) after the war. He actually transhipped the bombs from the Indy to Tinian (or was it Saipan, can never keep those two straight). And he was supposed to do some heroistic thing in Korea going under a bridge on the Yalu river counting trucks for intel, but it was called off. Still earned a designation from the NK as a war criminal (long, funny story). And he did something secret later on when his ship dropped out of moverep in the 50s or 60s, but he would never tell me what and then he died. Anyhow...can't think of anything that special, but if you did an article related to it would be cool. Oh...and I wrestled in high school. What a sport. Nothing like spending the winter wrestling to give some confidence as a young small male!TCO (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

next

Akagi is pretty much ready for your loving attentions. I'll probably put some effort into Ryujo while you're working on Akagi, although the sources are a lot scantier than on the other carriers. I didn't photocopy the portions of Sunburst on the carriers, but I think Dank might be able to add anything I've missed from Peattie. Sources are also scanty on the Soryu and Zuikaku-class carriers. Do think that we should work on the class articles first or the individual ship articles? I'm looking pretty far ahead in our long-term project, but your thoughts would be welcome regardless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm about ready to get started on Akagi. After that, I'm planning on getting occupied with Attack on Pearl Harbor and related articles. That article (Pearl Harbor) will probably take me about six months to get ready for FAR. In my opinion, it's better to get the individual ship articles to FA before the class article, because you can copy paragraphs from the ship articles to the class article (parts to the whole). I need to get up and run in the morning. Cla68 (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Help needed with a poor quality article

Cla68, could you take a look at the last few sections at Talk:United States and state terrorism and maybe recommend sources and examples of how to fix up that article? Jehochman ^Talk 21:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll check it out, but I don't think I know any more about that topic area than the next guy. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I left a comment. The problem is that I just don't have time to get involved and help fix that article. This is an example of where a Citizendium-type editing model would work better, keeping an article like this in "development space" until it's ready for publication. Cla68 (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Cla68! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Camp Chapman attack

Hi Cla68,

I've just seen that you have added a reference to Camp Chapman attack. In autumn 2010, the CIA has concluded an investigation, and has communicated some of the findings. I would very much like to add this to the article, but I have limited time right now. The article is a Military history A-Class article right now, and I think it could be nominated for Good article status.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but you know A-class is considered to be a higher level than Good Article? I think if a little more details from the CIA report are included, and some information on subsequent, related events is added, then the article could be nominated for FA. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about the details of the article classification systems. One problem with nominating the article for FA status would probably be the scarcity of available information on the event, and the propensity of internet-based sources that support potentially controversial content to disappear from public sight without notice.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead links are ok if the source is adequately cited (author, publication, publisher, date of publication, date retrieved). I think the article covers the topic well, but I'll give it a harder look when I have a chance. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hosho FAC

You might want to look over the comments on the Hosho FAC and on the article talk page, particularly those by Cryptic. He wants to move the CV silhouttes from the Notes section and has some other stuff that you might want to consider.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. Cla68 (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:ACTIVIST

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for starting WP:ACTIVIST. It outlines a problem area that wasn't covered before. Novus Orator 04:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

I saw you comment on Binksternet , and I was wondering what "Iran-related articles" are you talking about? Could you post some examples of your edits here? I frequently edit this topical area, and I don't recall ever encountering you. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been awhile, so I'll have to look around to see which articles it was. A couple of them were related to the Israel/Palestine conflict in which I added information on Iran's involvement in supplying arms to the Palestinian militants. Other edits were to articles on Iranian military weapons and operations. Cla68 (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could provide some evidence, like diff links. Are you sure that the editors who reverted you were Iranian? Maybe you just made a wrong assumption. I believe you're generalizing a bit. Most Iranian editors I encounter around here , neither care about, nor have any involvement on topics dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I never said that the editors who reverted me were Iranian. Cla68 (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with me, but do not call me a vandal.

It is a personal attack.

Continuing down this path will lead to unpleasant results.

Read WP:VANDAL for more on the subject.

Until you decide to apologize for that remark and edit summary, do not edit my user talkpage.

jps (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have called this edit vandalism had I seen it show up on my watchlist done by an IP editor or a new redlink editor. Why did you write "piss-poor" as a judgment offered up in a neutral encyclopedia? I defend the term "vandalize" as used by Cla68 to describe that "piss-poor" addition to a doomed FAQ page. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

An interesting commentary, but confusing considering that it is not being done in article-space. Calling a source "piss-poor" is something that might be very useful in a neutral encyclopedia. For example, the Urantia Book is a piss-poor source with regards to historical accuracy. See what I mean? WP:VANDAL defines vandalism a LOT more tightly than just strong language. The edit also has to be content-free. I've gotten in trouble in the past for calling people who are making good faith edits "vandals" when they weren't vandals, so I know what I'm talking about here. jps (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Cla68 used the verb "vandalize" to describe your one action, not the noun "vandal" to describe you. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

JPS arb enforcement

re: "he ordered me not to edit his page" [1]. not a big issue, but in the future don't let pissy demands like that stop you from fulfilling administrative requirements. Go ahead and post the notice; he's within his rights to delete it immediately if he doesn't want you on his talk page, but you will have observed due diligence in the matter. that will save you the kind of nitpicky wikilawyering (nitwikilawyering?) that you're already getting. --Ludwigs2 06:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Targeting Yamamoto

If you choose to focus some energy on the Operation Vengeance article, let me know. One thing it needs is a map of the flight plan, another is a better reading flow, less bouncing around. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It is on my to do list and I have all the books that I need for it. I'm not sure when I'll be able to get to it, however. Hoepfully soon. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no time limit, of course! It took me this long to notice you were living in Japan, a fact which gives me some hope that you'll have access to more sources than I do in California, me speaking only American English with a kitchen-table smattering of other Romance languages. I imagine that you might have a better understanding of Warrant Officer Kenji Yanagiya's version of events, an invaluable objectivity.

Congratulations on the FT Guadalcanal Campaign getting the decennial spot at Main page! Great work—fantastic, really. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, I took a picture of Yamamoto's grave in Tokyo a few weeks ago and will try to get it uploaded soon. Cla68 (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Guadalcanal FT on main page

Hey Cla, as part of Wikipedia's 10th anniversary celebrations, your Guadalcanal FT is going to be on the main page. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 15, 2011. :-) Congratulations! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I've submitted a request for clarification concerning your recent edits to Wikipedia talk:Activist. See here. --TS 21:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Theistic science theories

Category:Theistic science theories, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. edg ☺ ☭ 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Both Jprw and the dynamic IP are editing on the same articles, Roger Scruton and Right-wing politics. Both articles have been semi-protected because of sockpuppetry by the IP, and several of the IP addresses have been blocked for sockpuppetry. There is some similarity between the writing style of Jprw and the IP.

Jprw has chosen to post comments by the blocked IP on talk pages and to restore deleted comments by the IP, which is meatpuppetry. He also has a history of edit-warring.

That evidence is sufficient to create suspicion and the best way to resolve the suspicion is through SPI. The administrators at SPI have experience in identifying sockpuppets and checkuser. It would be wrong however to make accusations outside SPI. If my suspicions are incorrect however it sould be fairly simple for Jprw to end this.

TFD (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The SPI is based on weak evidence and doesn't look to me like it will go anywhere, in spite of you trying to draw in more admins by posting about it at ANI. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

When a page is protected because of sockpuppetry by blocked editors, would you post the comments of those editors in order to assist them in evading the block? TFD (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You're talking about an article talk page, right? I probably wouldn't restore them, but I probably wouldn't delete them either unless they were posting vulgar vandalism. Again, however, this doesn't appear to have much to do with trying to prove that jprw is a sock. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Might be best not to involve yourself

While I have no doubt that your intentions are good in trying to advise ZuluPapa5, I don't think that your contributions are appropriate in this area. Your advice to ZuluPapa5 that he blank his evidence pages rather than have them deleted directly contradicts the instructions in the Arbitration remedies (#Deletion of evidence sub-pages). I also believe that you're treading very close to your own topic ban in the climate change area, by commenting on content and involving yourself in disputes intimately related to that subject. Finally, your own history in this area makes it difficult for other editors to perceive you as an 'honest broker' here. If you intend to comment further, I would strongly urge you to first seek an official clarification or amendment from the ArbCom; any other route is likely to lead directly to an arbitration enforcement request. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice Ten. Cla68 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, leave it to the "neutrals" like TOAT. :-) ATren (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish I had a dime for every time I've been threatened with a block, administrator intervention, or Arbcom report or enforcement request by an editor who didn't appreciate my involvement in an issue whose outcome was apparently important to them for one reason or another. Cla68 (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Joshua Zelinsky

This is a problematic issue raised by my colleague, Joshua Zelinsky...

Outcast User:Moulton being annoying, continuing to expose corrupt editors IDCab

User:Moulton who was banned for persistent disruption, has been editing the last few days via IP addresses where he has continued to try to out the same editors he had a beef with before his ban. This is the most recent example. A block would be helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why JoshuaZ is on the warpath against Moulton, but Moulton allegedly posted some comments to a BLP Talk page, and JoshuaZ removed it. [2] Read it for yourself if you want to decide who is being disruptive. Roger (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Joshua Zelinsky is on the warpath on behalf of IDCab because in the last battle of this epic MMPORG, those on the side of accuracy, ethics, and excellence in online media beat their brains out. Or more precisely, Charles Ainsworth beat their brains out at ArbCom . So they obviously don't want anyone to do that again. But the sensible thing to do would be to correct the blatant errors in the BLPs. I mean is that too much to ask? —Moulton 08:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering that multiple admins just removed those diffs, deleted them, and then blocked the IP address, this seems pretty clear cut. Anyway, problem resolved. I'm marking the section as resolved. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, one of those admins was me (coming across the issue via WP:BLPN on my watchlist); I've blocked the IP for one month and deleted some text and revision-deleted some things. I was going to ask someone else to take another look at the incident in case any further action is needed, as I need to log off now. Rd232 ^talk 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Feel free to block all 160,000 Verizon IPs in Eastern Massachusetts, plus a slew of IPs in two other states. Also, feel free to invite Jimbo Wales to shut down Wikiversity, as FeloniousMonk sought to do the last time around. Lot of good it did him, eh? —Barry Kort 05:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Marking as unresolved. He's continuing to evade the block and reposting his outing User talk:Schlafly and at Talk:David Berlinski. Suggest semiprotection of that page, and this page (since he's now posting comments here) is in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't his only IP - I recently blocked User:68.160.132.4 as Moulton too. Raul654 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's used other IPs on BLPN, Schafly talk page, Talk:David Berlinski, and User talk:rd232. Hence my request for semi-protection. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have a quarter million IPs in three states. Do you propose to block them all? Or would you prefer negotiate a peaceable resolution of my dispute with the tattered remnants of IDCab? —Moulton 06:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

He's threatening to continue saying he has access to vast numbers of IPs if we don't negotiate a resolution. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Are you alarmed by the fact that Verizon service in Eastern Massachusetts comprises a block of some 160,000 dynamic IPs? —Moulton 08:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't something be done about his posts at User talk:Schlafly#David Berlinski -- including the fact that his signature links to his Wikiuniversity page rather than the IP he's using to evade the ban? Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Of course something should be done. They should be thoughtfully responded to by Roger and other interested and responsible parties who care about accuracy, excellence, and ethics on online media. —Moulton 08:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And I presume here, using another Wikiversity ID [3] as a link instead of the IP address. Dougweller (talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Caprice can never die. —Albatross 11:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In view of this and this combined with the general threat/boast from this character, I have semi-protected ANI for three hours. Favonian (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I recommend against moral panic at the discovery of moral bankruptcy. Unless, of course we are crafting a comic opera about moral panic at the revelation of moral bankruptcy. My perplexity is that I can't tell the difference between a comic opera and reality here on Wikipedia. —Gastrin Bombesin 10:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

How may we address this? —Caprice 11:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is an instance of the Corollary to Moulton's Nth Law of Bureaucracy: Once a corrupt bureaucracy makes a mistake, not only can it not be fixed, it can't even be mentioned. Evar. —Montana Mouse 11:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You fool. It's a losing cause. You're playing Mafia Wars with a gang that has bigger banhammers than you. —Barsoom Tork 13:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have observed some of the incidents mentioned above over the last couple of weeks, although I didn't see the ANI thread. I don't have any comment at this time. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboards

It's appropriate for both sides of a dispute to post to a noticeboard. The account who posted initially misstated the objection and didn't fully describe the dispute. A message like your might be better when engaged editors (from either side) begin dominate the discussion to the exclusion of outside input.   Will Beback  talk  15:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The other account appeared to try to present both sides of the dispute. Your comments didn't. There it is. Are you sure your personal feelings on that topic aren't a little too intense? Cla68 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the account apparently tried to show both sides, but did not succeed in including all of the issues and thus mischaracterized the dispute. My posting made no attempt to show both sides because I assume the account laid out his own version adequately. I simply pointed out some of the issues from my perspective. I have no personal feeling about Pirogov. However I am a bit tired of HK pushing poor-quality sources while trying to delete good quality sources in order to further the pro-LaRouche POV, and I'm also a bit tired of WR denizens supporting his socks and his personal attacks. HK has been editing here for longer than I have. Why don't you go ask him about his personal feeling on the topic, and ask him to maybe stop editing for a while?   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Will, if the LaRouche articles were as NPOV as they could be, there wouldn't be a problem. Instead of treating this as a personal battle between you and a banned editor, why don't you work on making those articles more neutral? Are you willing and able to do so, or are your personal feelings getting in the way? Cla68 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any personal feelings about the subject of those articles. As I've said before, I'm willing to work with any established editor to improve the LaRouche related articles. I believe they are neutral now, but every article can be improved. However HK is not satisfied with NPOV articles, and he keeps coming back to add dubious assertions and remove well-sourced material. As for making it personal, take a look at HK's contributions to WR - he's obsessed with me. I think it's bizarre that Wikipedia editors like yourself support him.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, you keep bringing it back to "HK". It's obvious that you see this as a battle between you and him. When I look at the articles, I see you trying to prevent reliable sources from being used, often using specious and disingenuous rationales. To be honest, I think your personal feelings on the topic are preventing you from seeing it objectively. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that he has been to the ArbCom three times, and eventually site baned, I'd say it's more of a battle between HK and Wikipedia. I don't think I've ever made any "specious or disingenuous" arguments. It's easy to make that claim, but without support you're just engaging in a personal attack. As I said before, I'd be happy to work with you or other established editors on the article, but I'm disappointed that instead of taking it on directly you support HK on WR and his socks on WP. Do you think HK views LaRouche objectively, having followed or even worked for him for thirty years?   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you characterize my participation in the topic's content discussions as "supporting HK." Remember, I started this article, which has since been greatly expanded by other editors, none of whom I believe were "HK socks", after you and another editor had spent years dismissing the topic as a figment of LaRouche's imagination. Thus, this ongoing battle between you and HK and his, as you characterize it, hordes of socks, is damaging Wikipedia. I wish you would stop it. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

With whom were those old discussions of the landbridge held? Who is the chief admin of WR? Who keeps appearing on the LaRouche pages, year after year, making the same proposals? Do you really believe that HK has not edited WP since he was blocked in 2006?   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, what is with this myopia and obsession with HK? The Larouche article failed FAC in 2005. Six editors objected to it, saying it had NPOV problems. Two of those were HK socks, four were not. If the NPOV concerns with the article were corrected, then it probably could make FA. You have had six years to do so. Unfortunately, this ongoing battle to ensure that "HK doesn't win" appears to be getting in the way. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If HK never returns to Wikipedia then I won't have to deal with him again. I'd be very happy for that to happen. As for FA status, I already brought one LaRouche-related article that far. If you can get HK to stay away I'd be willing to do the same with the bio. Are you willing to stand up to your WR buddy and run interference for productive WP editors?   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from a recent exchange on that article talk page, I try to uphold Wikipedia's rules with everyone, including you. I don't agree with your stance on the foreign language sources. I don't think your stance on those sources is productive. If you're taking that stance simply because you believe that HK is behind the suggestion that those sources be used, then your personal feelings are getting in the way of improving Wikipedia, and I find that very unfortunate. Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you answer any of the questions I asked in my last post?   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Run interference? If an HK sock is identified by a checkuser, which I am not one, the account is immediately blocked. If an account is not identified by checkuser as a sock, then WP:AGF requires us to treat the account as an equal editor. So, there's nothing I need to change here. I do, however, think that you need to change a few things about how you behave in relation to the LaRouche topic. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

CLA68, your opinion on military matters is worthy of respect. But on the matter of HK I am not interested in what you have to say. You support someone who explicitly violates the site's policies in order to promote a fringe view, and who operates a site where his main activity is attacking Wikipedia editors. You support him in both endeavors.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Will, the reason you have been losing so many arguments lately in Wikipedia is because your stance on several issues, such as BLP, is wrong. Your attitude towards editing in many ways reminds me of behavior that was tolerated in Wikipedia five or six years ago, but fortunately appears to have faded into the past for most of the high-participation editors in the project. Wikipedia Review has played an important role in helping change the editing environment in Wikipedia. I believe, however, that the major reason for the change in the editing environment is because most editors have had it with that way of doing things and no longer accept it. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If you think there's a problem with my editing then start an RfC. However, since you have spent years supporting violations of site policy by a banned editor who pushes a fringe view and launches vitriolic attacks of Wikipedia editors, it's apparent that your concern for the policies of this project is limited.   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And yes, I did see that, and appreciated it.   Will Beback  talk  02:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're approaching this from the wrong side, Charles. It's blindingly obvious who AF is and, even if it's an associate, it's still a group with a POV to push. That itch you have is, I think, more related to the offensive double standards. I'd have a lot more sympathy for Will's (albeit valid) point if he was even half as fast at identifying B&K socks as he is in identifying HK socks... and of course if he'd admit to and stop his own POV pushing efforts. Slim raised the issue of naked short selling, and I tend to agree. Except I don't think she'd agree with my view that the only difference I'm seeing is that HK doesn't have anything of the moral high-ground (such as it was) enjoyed by JB. Having said all that, no one really cares what an unimportant American fruitloop thinks. I mean, seriously? Why else do you think Will gets away with it, but gets pulled up when he tries it elsewhere?120.23.0.60 (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of that means.

Cla68, I'd be happy to discuss the evidence with any admin who doesn't pal around with HK on WR. For the reasons listed above, I don't think it would be appropriate to share confidential information concerning HK with you. Angel's flight is welcome to post unblock requests on his talk page. One has already bee denied.   Will Beback  talk  04:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

So, the only people who have seen any of this "evidence" are two editors who have taken an adversarial position with Angel's flight over that article and a checkuser who voted in the past as a member of ArbCom to sanction the editor, and now does not respond to requests to confirm whether the IPs were the same or not, the same one to deny the block appeal. Cla68 (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't see, here is some POV pushing evidence I found for you. Jesanj (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And, if you're interested, check this out. Jesanj (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you dispute my assertion that Angel's flight was violating WP:NPOV by pushing a POV that has been published by the LaRouche movement? Jesanj (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The diffs you linked to that I looked at didn't show POV-pushing to me. As is pointed out in this essay, (which SlimVirgin assisted me in writing, and I really appreciate her help with it), POV-pushing usually involves unilateral removal of material cited to reliable sources, edit-warring to back up the removal, accompanying incivility on the article talk page, and attempted additions of pejorative information to the BLPs of people who are critics of the movement, idea, philosophy, or platform in question. Cla68 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. And thanks for the link, I read the essay. Jesanj (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sam Jaffe

Hi. I found one source that says actor Sam Jaffe was a veteran of World War I, but I can't find anything about this. Any ideas? Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

On Tuesday (Japan time) I can check Infotrac to see if there is anything on him. Infotrac goes back to 1981, so if it produces any obituaries, that might have some information on his relationship with the Great War. I'm hoping to have access to LexisNexis soon, also. There are a few message boards related to WWI and someone on one of those might know where to find info. Otherwise, I don't know enough about the literature of WWI to know where to look for more information. Let me think about it a few days and see if I can come up with any other possible avenues for information. I'll post anything I find or think of on your userpage. Cla68 (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't want you to go out of your way or anything. I'm just curious, where do armchair researchers go to check up on and verify military service? This has come up before, with another article I was working on, Claude Anshin Thomas. Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This probably constitues OR for Wikipedia, but from what I understand historians usually begin by requesting a copy of the person's service records brief from the US armed forces personnel archive which I believe is located near St. Louis. I'll have to search around the contact information. Cla68 (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I just emailed you some possible sources I found. It appears that the place to go to access service history is here. Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Persons convicted of fraud

Since you Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_26#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud participated in the recent CfD of Category:Persons convicted of fraud I wanted to inform you that the category was recently recreated and relisted. Here is a link to the current CfD should you wish to participate. [Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud]]. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Drone edits

WRT: "[4] Everything in that text is in the sources." Nope and the tag makes what is not

"The "by whom" is the journalist who wrote the report." Click on the link and you will find the place that explains to you how to fix it.

Please do not wonder if people remove stuff that is just crap. Please do not take content issues to my talk page as the articles talk page is a better place. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hey Cla, I have a word document on the Design B-65 cruisers that was emailed to me by someone (I don't remember who...) awhile back. It uses "Perfect Guide to Japanese Battleships, pp. 140-141" as a reference for one part, but I can't find a book by that name. Can you offer any help? (I found a "perfect guide" to Japanese aircraft carriers, but not much more) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Perfect Guides" appear to be a series of Japanese publications on various topics by the Gakken company. I think I've seen some of these in local bookstores. I've never bought any of them, if I remember right, because they don't usually include any glossy, public domain pictures suitable for scanning and I figured I could get all the data from English publications. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the title of this mook says Japanese Battleships with a subtitle in katakana directly underneath saying "Perfect Guide". I can't read much more than that on the cover. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WP Japan in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Japan for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost article on WP Japan is scheduled to run this Monday. In light of the recent earthquake, is there anything else you'd like to request from our readers? If so, feel free to add the new information to the "anything else" section of the interview. -Mabeenot (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Cost of solar energy

Do you mind if I just cut-and-paste move the discussion from Talk:Solar energy to Talk:Cost of electricity by source? This seems to be a more appropriate discussion place.--E8 (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done.--E8 (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Photo with Japanese writing

Hi, I found a photo taken on a Japanese carrier during WWII [5]. Would it be possible for you to translate the text on the photo? Thank you Cobatfor (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The photo appears to be of Shōkaku or Zuikaku, but I can't read the photo caption. I've asked for help here, and if that doesn't do it, there are a couple of off-wiki forums that should work to ID the photo. Cla68 (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Cheers from the other side of the world! Cobatfor (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking in...

Hoping you and your family are OK. Are you near the epicenter? ATren (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of any differences we've had on Wikipedia, I just wanted to add that, having seen the news from Japan this morning, I hope that you, your family, and your friends are safe and getting by in what must be an incredibly difficult time. If there's anything you think that I, as a private citizen in the U.S., could do to help, please let me know. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern. My area in Kanagawa didn't suffer much heavy damage. In fact, nothing in my house even fell over. I've previously traveled or spent time in some of the places you can see in the tsunami videos, however, and I'm astounded by the level of destruction. It may take some time for those communities to recover. Cla68 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you're OK. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

On Japanese TV, I just saw rescuers pulling a little kid out of a collapsed house. It appears that his parents didn't make it. The scale of the destruction is really starting to emerge this morning (it's 0830 here). I think the damage from this quake will be worse than the Great Hanshin earthquake, but the death toll may hopefully be lower, because Tohoku is more sparsely populated and the quake hit in the afternoon of a workday instead of early in the morning. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The tsunami images are mindblowing indeed. Weird, after NZ and everything too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

They were saying on the radio here that there may be aftershocks for weeks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the aftershocks woke us up several times during the night, but they weren't really that strong. Me and my family had gone to the Kanagawa disaster preparedness center/museum a couple of weeks ago and rode their eathquake simulator. My wife told me that when the earthquake hit yesterday afternoon, our kids immediately went and got under the kitchen table as they had taught us to do at the center. At work, I yelled at my coworkers to get under their desks, but they ignored me, of course, and ran outside which you're not supposed to do. Fortunately, no one was hurt and there wasn't any damage to our building. Also, fortunate for us, is that few of us had to rely on the trains to get home. Cla68 (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Today, Japanese broadcast media were able to reach more isolated coastal villages and towns. The extent of the damage is almost incomprehensible. A number of towns with 10,000-20,000+ inhabitants have basically been wiped off the map. It's hard to estimate how many people died, however, because many people did respond to the tsunami warnings and made it to high ground in time, but many others, in some towns up to half the population, remain missing. Cla68 (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Horrible for the small towns! Glad you are okay. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also glad to hear you and your family are OK. If you have time, would you be able to look here and check that the links I've piped behind the names used by the Japan Meteorological Agency point to the correct locations? Those are the location of JMA tsunami recording stations. I was concerned that Erimo one in particular made little sense, but it seems there was a big surge up there in Hokkaidō as well - are there cliffs up there? I also noticed this: "In the space of an hour, tsunami waves swept inland, buffeting Japan's coast from Erimo in the northern island of Hokkaido to Oarai, Fukushima, about 670 kilometers to the south, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency. The waves reached as far as 20 kilometers inland, NHK reported." From that, I fear I may have mis-linked to Ōarai, Ibaraki. Are there two places called Oarai along that coastline? Carcharoth (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is something wrong with the Erimo and Oarai numbers. Either you have them linked right and the sensor readings are faulty, or they are from two different locations with similar-sounding names in Fukushima, Miyagi, or Iwate prefectures. If the latter, it could be that the sensor location names for those two places are using the names of towns or locations that aren't widely used anymore because towns have combined since then or something like that. The names could sound the same but be written with different Kanji, making it difficult to figure out where they are located. One way would be to access the Japanese page from the meteorlogical agency, compare the two tables from the English and Japanese pages to find the city names, then transcribe the kanji into the search box in the Japanese wikipedia or Japanese Google and see what comes up. I'll see what I can do to find out the answer. I'll probably take the easy way and ask a Japanese acquaintance to help me out. Cla68 (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Local geography and seafloor topology near the coast can cause tsunamis to do funny things. In particular, as wave systems, they refract and bend around capes and can be magnified if funneled down a bay. That is why there was so much damage in one of those ports over in North America - the bay funnels the energy and focuses it on the port (same thing happened with earlier tsunamis). What I've never understood though is what determines whether the surge or fall happens first - some places get a fall in water level first, others get little to no warning (see the 'Initial Tsunami Observation' map here). Anyway, I'm convinced that Erimo is correct, as this map clearly shows the red value on Hokkaido and if you hover over it, it says Erimo. You can hover over the other red values as well on that map. On the map one sector down, you can hover over Oarai, which looks to me to be in Ibaraki prefecture, rather than Fukushima prefecture (would you agree?). It is surprising how few detectors there are along that coast and none on the Fukushima coast, which is why I was puzzled when the newspaper article put Oarai in Fukushima prefecture (134 hits versus 34,000 hits). Don't forget that the whirlpool was near Oarai, Ibaraki. What I was also hoping for was something explaining what 'oki' and 'shi' and 'cho' mean in the names the JMA use. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, well at least I can help with that without confusing things more. Without seeing the kanji, oki likely means coast or offshore, shi means city, and cho means town. Cla68 (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• The sakura are coming into full bloom in the Kanto area this week. This means they'll be blooming in Tōhoku in another week or so. The fact that these blossoms symbolize rebirth and renewal is not lost on the people here as they begin to climb out of the well of this disaster. The blossoms blooming at this time is a very poignant and timely event and perhaps one of the most emotionally intense episodes of the hanami season in Japan since World War II. Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WWII Pacific Theater articles

I had an inquiry by someone I know who asked me where they could find more detail regarding WWII Pacific Theater information and I referred them to your userpage and told them to check out the articles you have listed in your Content section...I doubt anyone else on this website has doen the level of work you have in that area of interest. Is there a list of any other WWII Pacific Theater articles that can be linked to so I can shoot another email to the interested party?--MONGO 15:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also...wanted to add that I am glad to read above that you are safe, but having been in disaster relief situations in the past and looking at the extent of damage that we have available here stateside, the loss of life there must be enormous.--MONGO 16:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the concern. The devastation in northeast Japan is stunning. I'm still having trouble getting my mind around it. Anyway, probably the best link for Pacific War articles is the Pacific War article itself, because everything else basically branches off of that one. Also, the Majestic Titan project includes a number of articles on capital ships which were involved in the Pacific War. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea...follow the blue links...excellent. I will pass that on and thank you for your assistance and for all the excellent article work you have done.--MONGO 22:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Good job

Just wanted to say, you have a very good looking user page and your contributions to the Japan Earthquake 2011 page have been very positive and thorough! Keep up the good work. Rsteilberg 00:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteilberg (talk • contribs)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Signpost article

The WikiProject Japan Signpost article scheduled for this week was postponed in light of the earthquake, tsunami, and ongoing nuclear crisis. We would like to publish the interview within the next couple weeks with updated information that takes into account the events in Japan. Please take an opportunity to return to the interview page to answer some additional questions located at the bottom of the page. This is also an opportunity to revise any previous answers if you feel the need. We hope to bring your story to a wider audience. Thanks again for your participation. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Source for Japanese aircraft at Pearl Harbor?

What's the best source for the detailed organization and targets of the Japanese aircraft at Pearl? There's no equivalent of Lengerer for the other four carriers once I get around to doing them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll check my books to see what I can find. Cla68 (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this. I checked At Dawn we Slept last night and it didn't have the information. I'll keep checking. Cla68 (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

*To answer the question posed by the header only; that would be those military sea going vessels capable of launching and recovering aeroplanes, widely known as "aircraft carriers"! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your analysis is shallow; the source is iron extracted from the ground, which came from the explosion of a dying star, which came from protons formed shortly after the big bang. Beyond that, it's all original research. ATren (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL = Laughing over little. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC) :P

Patriotic socks

I don't recall exactly if it was you or Roger Davis that said something about US gov't sock puppets not existing. Huh? Tijfo098 (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of Wikipedia in that article. Don't you have other things you could be worrying about? Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You and LaRouche

Thanks for your note. I don't see any specific concerns or policy violations. Could you point to what aspect of my edits is problematic? Please provide diffs.   Will Beback  talk  01:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That diff wasn't so informative. Did that editor ever make a comment that wasn't a joke? [6]   Will Beback  talk  06:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't cast aspersions on anyone. If you reread the thread, you'll see that the aspersions were being cast in my direction.   Will Beback  talk  07:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

2007 nuclear weapons incident

Hello, sir! Since you happen to be the author of this FA, is there any chance you know the exact unit this ill-fated B-52 was (is) assigned to and especially its tail number? Thank you very much. --Comiccar (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe that I saw that information anywhere. I believe that, along with the aircrews' names, the USAF kept that on close hold. Cla68 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Mar 2011, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Nice

Hi Cla68, I noticed your kind words to IP 140.247.126.237. Very nice gesture. — Ched :  ?  07:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The thing is, when I first started editing Wikipedia, I made some of the same mistakes the IP made, such as adding uncited information. Fortunately for me, some editors patiently and kindly explained how things worked. So, I really cringed when I saw how that IP was treated by an experienced editor. Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, if you say that I have bitten a newbie during the course of my edits here, what makes you not guilty of biting an oldie? Please try to be impartial in your choice of words, as it is very evident that you're taking this personally as well (no need to guess, it's written all over your statements everywhere including those on ANI), two wrong doesn't make one right, wouldn't you agree? For the record, reverting a recently happened event that is clearly not in line with the editing guidelines and policies laid down on WP:AIR (and per WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS) is not a direct violation of 3RR, per se. And if you're not a task-force member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, you won't have the slightest idea what we're dealing with on a daily basis and unless you do, I will hold my piece of you but not before that. I'm going for a break now, best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Dave, I made some of the same mistakes that that IP made when I first started editing Wikipedia. You didn't even attempt to help the IP improve what he/she was trying to do. Instead, you immediately reverted AND added threatening hidden text to the article. Then, you insulted the IP on the article talk page. Unnacceptable and inexcusable. Then, you tried to get the IP blocked for "vandalism", apparently to try to cover up the 3RR violation you had just committed. The IP is a shared IP, so you would have blocked innocent parties if admins had listened to you, which fortunately they didn't. Furthermore, the incident was notable enough to be included in the article, so you were wrong content-wise. In other words, you were wrong all the way around. If the reason you acted that way is because you're becoming jaded, cynical, and/or frustrated with editors adding sketchy stuff to aviation articles, then you need to take a break, because your reactions in this case were extremely unhelpful and counterproductive. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not going to say that you're a clueless tadpole but please read this article → Wikipedia:Observations on Wikipedia behavior ← before you make any more avoidable mistakes. Out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Dave, that essay is written like a horoscope. It has enough general truth that anyone and everyone can find a lot in it they agree with. One thing I've seen a lot of lately (the last couple of years) is people trying to "defend" articles and associated topics from "fringe theories", "junk science", "non-notable trivia or events," "UNDUE opinions", etc. There are two things we need to remember, in addition to showing some forbearence with new editors: (1) It's a wiki, which means that cooperation, collaboration, and compromise are not just encouraged, but required, in all topics, and (2) Don't worry about articles being "ruined". If people add stuff to an article you think is stupid, please don't be too quick to revert them and make them feel unwelcome. There are some topics in Wikipedia in which groups of regular editors have become so hostile to anyone but them making edits to the article, that it is almost impossible for outside editors to make any headway in improving said topic. I don't think that's a very desirable outcome. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• WP:TLDR, I stand to be corrected. Adieu~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the 'Hockey Stick Controversy'

Hey Cla68. Removing an edit you made to the 'See Also' list in the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce a year ago, as there is no clear context and the topic is not similar nor directly related. I'm assuming that this involved an error, but figured I should drop you a line. 0x69494411 01:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven (talk • contribs)

I was planning on expanding the article linked to in the See also, which would have shown the link between the two, but I never got around to it. I'm currently prohibited by ArbCom sanction (total topic ban) from discussing the topic in any detail. Cla68 (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

250km/h for Chinese trains

I had a good look online for this and couldn't see anything - even the Washington Post's website gave 186mph or 300km/h. Can you clarify the source? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

RFAR declined

Your request for arbitration has been declined. The Arbitrators felt that the checkuser issue was handled by the audit subcommittee, who found no evidence of wrongdoing, and that a lack of current activity meant that the issue was not ready for a full case.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do an RfC as recommended by one of the Members and link to it here and elsewhere once it's posted. Cla68 (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to file an RfCU against me, of course, but I trust it won't contain the same unsubstantiated accusations that've already been rejected by the ArbCom once or twice. I don't know why you're harassing me like this and seemingly proxying for a banned user, but it has been going on for some time. It's starting to feel like wikihounding.   Will Beback  talk  19:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The ArbCom has put off-limits articles that are even slightly connected to climate change:

• 3)Climate Change topic bans:

Those covered by this remedy should avoid initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia. LaRouche pubs are leading sources on the topic and it's been one of their main issues. I only just came across all of this and thought you should know to avoid any problems.   Will Beback  talk  11:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice

Thanks for the good adds/edits on death of Osama article. jengod (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Everyone is really doing a good job on the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Word for use

Who decides the word? --Thepm (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been since so far no one else has participated. If more people want to join in, we could set up a central page in someone's userspace somewhere and take turns choosing a word for the week. Cla68 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a wonderful idea, sign me up! :) --Thepm (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Page created. All invited. Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm back

Hi, Cla68. As you may have noticed, I have taken a break from editing pending resolution of your actions. Per discussion with arbcom members I am hereby formally requesting that you stop following me or engaging me in any articles/noticeboard discussion that I am involved in that you had not previously been involved in before you were asked to follow me around off-wiki. I will certainly try to avoid you when and where I can. Thanks. IronDuke 16:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Iron Duke, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you refresh my memory? I haven't been in any discussion with ArbCom about you, that I can remember, so I don't have a clue what your reference to "arbcom members" refers to. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks for replying so quickly. You first got my attention when you posted on my talk page [7], asking me to take six months off of editing because I had been less than welcoming to a user named User:Machn, an SPA editing the Leo Frank article who made anti-semitic and racist comments and edits. I was puzzled by this, both in terms of the editor you were defending (who made references to the “Jew pervert” Leo Frank, and referred to me as Mr. Ebonics because of typos in some of my posts and was eventually banned for using multiple sockpuppets), and also wondering why you had suddenly appeared on my talk page, when you had nothing to do with the article in question. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that, until someone alerted me to the fact that you had taken part in a discussion on Wikipedia Review initiated by two permabanned users, User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:gnetwerker, who seemed to be suggesting that someone initiate a campaign of harassment against me. As gnetwerker had in fact wikistalked me, on and off, for a number of years, I hope you can see why I found this to be cause for concern.

Understandably, you refused to admit where you had gotten the idea to begin this campaign, and instead focused on urging an anon IP to help you with the stalking. The full discussion can be seen here.

Some highlights (with editing/snipping):

OK, I'm going to put that and other articles that IronDuke regularly edits on my watchlist. If he continues with the same type of behavior I will report him to the appropriate authorities. Please let me know if he continues with the behavior. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

And also:

If you'll check the workshop page for that case, you'll see that IronDuke openly admits to having no intention of following WP:NPOV. For an editor who has been around as long as he has, I don't understand why he is allowed to get away with behaving the way he does. If he does it again, I will be reporting thim to the ArbCom enforcement board. Cla68 (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Then in response to the IP who was editing disruptively on Helen Thomas:

I know I shouldn't make claims about Ironduke's motivations, but after the treatment I've had from him and his friends, it would seem that at the very least they think making (entirely false) claims about someone's motivations is fine; and, as Ironduke likes to tell me, he is a wikipedia expert. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please give me some diffs and links to get me started. In case you don't know what I mean, a diff is the url to the edit made by an editor that you get from the page history when you compare two different edits. Cla68 (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, sorry about the wait, here's the diffs (in the same order as above): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHelen_Thomas&action=historysubmit&diff=378989239&oldid=378984172; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helen_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=376875177; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helen_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=377020482; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helen_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=376874451; and the link for the reversion where his edit summary includes "I don't owe you an explanation other than what's already on talk. Please let editors who are doing actual work do their work" is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helen_Thomas&diff=cur&oldid=376860819. Are these what you were looking for? Thanks, 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll get to this soon. Cla68 (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that you can remember none of this, but I trust this will adequately refresh your memory. In any case, after conferring with arbcom members about your behavior (which took some time, as you can see), per their request I am now formally notifying you that I expect you to stop following me to further articles, and to stop editing Leo Frank where, for example, you reverted me here. Interestingly, though in your edit summary you refer to yourself as having reverted to “SV’s version” that wasn’t really accurate, was it? You were in fact reverting to User:FatMargin's version who is… drum roll please… one of the many sockpuppets of gnetwerker.

I hope that’s all clear and satisfactory to you, and that we can both move on. Thanks again. IronDuke 01:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I just checked your talk page and remember some of it. I scolded you for violating WP:NPA and you took exception to it. I'll tell you this IronDuke, if you will follow Wikipedia's policies, including NPOV and NPA, then you shouldn't have to worry about me or anyone else getting on your case. You don't follow those policies, and me or someone else will be letting you know about it. Follow the rules and you get left alone to build the 'pedia. Do you understand? Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the edit conflict. I top-posted a bit -- I think that makes the discussion clearer, but if you'd like to reorganize, please feel free. IronDuke 01:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"You don't follow those policies, and me or someone else will be letting you know about it. Follow the rules and you get left alone to build the 'pedia. Do you understand?"

I won't reply to this just yet, as you haven't had a chance to read what I've written. I sincerely hope you will have a change in course (if not in heart) after doing so. If you continue to have a problem with this, please feel free to email arbcom about it. In the meantime, I'm expcting you to leave me alone. IronDuke 01:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been following you around. I do have some of WP's admin pages on my watchlist, such as ArbCom enforcement. If I see you brought to admin attention because there is a concern that you have violated a policy, I may add information about what I've observed of your past behavior. Again, if you follow the rules, you shouldn't have to worry about anything. I don't know if you know this, but the Israel/Palestine articles have, at least in the past, been one of the worst areas in Wikipedia for personal attacks, NPOV violations, edit warring, and similar behavior. That area has been a little better lately, in my opinion because of a lower tolerance for allowing that kind of behavior to go unanswered. I hope it stays that way. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that you haven't taken this notice on board. You are free to flout it, but my strong impression is that there will be consequences for you if you do -- again, I urge you to contact arbcom if you are in any doubt of this. Thanks again for your attention. IronDuke 01:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What I can't understand about this request is that me and you haven't really interacted that much. Also, I didn't understand why you took it to a private conversation with ArbCom instead of pursuing normal dispute resolution. After taking a break and thinking about it, I think I understand where this is coming from. You're afraid that a banned user, with which you have a long-running personal dispute, will watch until you slip up somehow, then ask me to intervene. So, you're trying to head that off by "formally" asking me to not interact with you. Do I understand this right? Cla68 (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, honestly, you seem to be closer to the right track now than at any other time that we’ve interacted, if perhaps not all the way there. I’m not sure what to say to your first point. I suppose it depends on your definition of the word “much.” I took your threat to monitor my activities, considering from whence it arose, very seriously. If you look back at what I posted above about the comments you made previously, I hope you can start to get some sense of why that is. I was obliged to contact arbcom privately because this issue involves RL identities. Going to some random noticeboard would have been impossible. I don’t have a “long-running dispute” with the user in question: he’s wikistalked me for years. Sometimes he ropes in credulous Wikipedians to help him with this project—really, it’s probably the cruelest part of what he does, making the lives of otherwise well-meaning Wikipedians difficult because they don’t realize who it is they’re helping. AGF, I could convince myself that this description applies at least in part to you. I hope that this all makes sense to you, and that you are able to move on without feeling ill-done by. Thanks. IronDuke 17:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, see, here's the problem with your whole approach here. Instead of confronting me with threats and bluster, why didn't you just explain the situation? You don't have to worry about me following you around and opposing you in content discussions. I don't do that. From what I've observed, however, is that you often seem too emotionally invested in some of the Israel-related topics you edit, which results in you getting into a battleground-type of approach with other editors instead of cooperating, collaborating, and compromising. I'm going to assume that after this break you have returned willing and able to follow all of WP's rules. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Explain the situation? You refused to even say where it was you got the idea to pop up on my talk page. Given that it was at the behest of two banned users, I can see why. But if there was a breakdown in communication, it's clear that it began with you. I also find it odd that you attempt to upbraid me for violations of NPA when, if my source is correct, you cheerfully heaped scorn and vituperation on me off-wiki, comments that might have gotten you blocked had you posted them here. You write that I don't have to worry about you "following you around and opposing you in content discussions." I'll take you at your word (and for that to include all areas of WP, not merely content discussions) and will even go so far as to overlook your obviously incorrect assertion that you haven't been doing this. I see you want to save some face, and I'm happy to oblige you, so long as you do indeed keep clear of me. I won't respond here again on this point. Cheers. IronDuke 00:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You know, I've often thought that wikipedia needs an essay on not-so-passive-aggressive bullshit (WP:NSPABS). IronDuke, no sane adult could possibly read any of your screed on this page as anything other than arrogant offensiveness. So let's go through the original aggression:

1) "As you may have noticed, I have taken a break from editing pending resolution of your actions" So what you start with is an allegation that Charles is the cause of some pain to you and that there is some sort of investigation. No proof of said invesitgation, of course, just random mudslinging. And, of course, the "poor me, what a victim I am" campaign. 2) "Per discussion with arbcom members" Again with the random mudslinging. Name these phantom arbcom members, or crawl back into your hole. 3) Paraphrase: 'I demand that you promise to stop stalking me and I'll try to be nice to you' Seriously? What sort of idiot could possibly take that as a reasonable compromise? IronDuke, Charles wants you to be nicer to people and stop assuming bad faith. Heck, there's even a policy about that, isn't there? But, instead of taking that comment to heart, you turn up the WP:NSPABS all the way to eleven. Charles has authored many FAs, he's copy edited hundreds, if not thousands of articles, and aided countless editors in their improvement of the encyclopaedia. What have you done that gives you the right to malign him so? Read WP:AGF, internalise it. The fact that there are some people who don't want to do the right thing does not give you licence to join them. If you find it all too hard, find another hobby. Now go away and leave Charles to his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.23.134.227 (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for your image alignment help, at Santorum (neologism). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. The article looks fair and neutral to me. Cla68 (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, thank you very very much for that comment! That is high praise coming from you - and I really appreciate your kind words very much! -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Martin Luther

Hello. You made a comment on the peer review page of Matin Luther. I couldn't organize it as you said and couldn't you do it? TGilmour (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vermouth

Hello! Your submission of Vermouth at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I added several alternate hooks. Thanks for the help. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Climate change RFAR and LaRouche

Cla68, I see you're a veteran of the Climate Change arbitration, so I'm wondering if I could get your opinion on a related matter. This regards Lyndon LaRouche. By one account this movement's publications are "at the forefront of denying the reality of global warming". The articles featured in their two main magazines illustrate the movement's devotion to that topic. Executive Intelligence Review and 21st Century Science and Technology Some of their prominent views are covered at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#Environment and energy. Apparently, their facts or theories have been repeated by more mainstream commentators like Rush Limbaugh. My question is whether you, Cla68, think the LaRouche bio and related articles would be covered by the Arbitration topic ban on "articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages" and "biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed"?   Will Beback  talk  10:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Stephen's and Collect's take on it is correct. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree and have filed an AE request to seek your compliance with the ArbCom's topic ban.   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to you, at my user talkpage. Thank you, Cla68, for the polite manner in which you are conducting yourself in discussions with me. I really appreciate it. A lot. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U suggestion

Cla68, a suggestion has been made at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#What_administrative_action_is_sought_here.3F that perhaps RfC/Us would be the way forward here. What are your thoughts? Would you co-certify if I raised an RfC/U on Cirt, based on the concerns I posted to their talk page yesterday, and similar cases? --JN466 22:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would be willing to co-certify. Also, I'm preparing an RfC on the LaRouche articles, which, of course, will include comment on the recent enforcement request. Would you be willing and able to co-certify that one? Cla68 (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --JN466 22:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever specific help you need, just ask. I'll continue preparing the LaRouche RfC offline then post it in userspace shortly before it's final so you can add anything if desired. Cla68 (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I presume this involves me. I'd like to ask permission in advance to quote the off-Wiki comments you've made about the LaRouche topic and involved editors. Likewise about Cirt for the other RfC. I believe you've both made extensive comments on WikipediaReview. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the question was intentionally ignored I presume there's no objections to including the WR discussions in any future RFCUs.

Cla68, if there are any significant disputes on the LaRouche articles then mediation would seem like the appropriate next step in dispute resolution. Shall I initiate a request?   Will Beback  talk  03:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, I'm following the advice of one of the arbitrators who suggested an RfC. Hey, isn't it a Friday night of a holiday weekend in the US? What are you doing editing Wikipedia? It's a saturday morning here and the only reason I'm looking at this website from time to time is because it's raining outside. Last night I watched The King's Speech and I wholeheartedly recommend it if you haven't watched it yet. Cla68 (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned here a LaRouche RFC. RfCs are applicable to articles, usually about specific content issues. If it's an RFCU, then I'd like to know what policies have been violated to merit one? If no policies have been violated then mediation would be better. Since you don't object, I assume that's fine with you and it'll save you the trouble of wasting your weekend. Since there hasn't been any previous mediation informal mediation through the MedCab would be the best place to start.   Will Beback  talk  04:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-05-28/LaRouche movement please add your signature to indicate your willingness to participate.   Will Beback  talk  04:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, you told me to do an RfC if there were any issues with your editing, so I'm following your advice also. Cla68 (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What issues are there with my editing?

Are you refusing to join in mediation?   Will Beback  talk  04:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, just following others' advice, including your own, to do an RfC to seek community input and insight into the issues surrounding that topic area. Cla68 (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, what issues are there surrounding my editing of the LaRouche topic? How have you tried to resolve them?   Will Beback  talk  05:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello? You presented a bunch of material to the ArbCom a couple of months ago and they didn't find a problem. I hope you're not planning to regurgitate the same old evidence that has already been reviewed and dismissed. If the "community" who turns up ends up just being your pals from WR then an RfC won't provide much useful community input. So again, what policies or guidelines have been violated to merit an RFCU?   Will Beback  talk  06:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I will assume that all parties involved in this dispute are watching this page. I have posted some comments and requested clarification and further information on the Mediation Cabal case page. If all those involved in this dispute (read - content dispute) could leave comments on the case page, linked above, that would be most helpful. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Vermouth

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's Attack Page

I've started a discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#User:SlimVirgin.2FPoetgate Mindbunny (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I completely understand if you have no interest in discussing SlimVirgin and Jayjg. I've only recently turned over that rock, so it's probably quite a bit more eye-opening and novel to me than to you. But, I am curious about your perspective. To me, it points to deep, underlying problems in admin accountability. Double-standards, a lack of equality in content decisions, and so on. Do you have an interpretation of the whole thing and how it applies to issues of fairness? Again, if you want it to be water under the bridge, I understand. I won't ask you about it again. Mindbunny (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a history page telling a story of abuse that happened in the past, not an attack page. Mindbunny, dude, let this page alone. Binksternet (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If I could get some help

I'm really not quite sure what to do here. You commented in the WP:RSN section about the source on the protests in Ahwaz in the 2011 Iranian protests article. Since then, I have found quite a few other sources, such as Al Bawaba, Human Rights Watch, Los Angeles Times (falls under WP:NEWSBLOG). But Kurdo has been continually marginalizing the information, with summaries like "Al Bawaba is a self-publishing blog-like site with no editorial oversight, not a news agancy or newspaper . It doesn't meet the requirments of WP:RS", or "trimming down HRW statment, this is not Human Rights in Iran page, please mind WP:Undue" (in this case, specifically removing the information referring to excessive force, arrests of Arab people, and government censorship). Then there's how he's adding in specific words to try and make it seem to the reader that the sources still in the section are unreliable, such as making sure that Al Arabiya has "Saudi-owned pan-Arab" in front of it, specifying blog for Los Angeles Times (while technically correct, we usually don't specify it, since per WP:NEWSBLOG, the writers are still staff of the paper and are the same as any regular news report), adding that the journalist for the Los Angeles Times is "Lebanese-based".

I really don't know how to deal with this properly, because it is a content issue, so I can't really take it to ANI. You might also want to see this section made on my talk page. Silverseren^C 05:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just found a [RFERL source, let's see what happens when I add it. Silverseren^C 05:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what help I can give. Cla68 (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sea World vs. SeaWorld

Hi. I've reverted your recent edits to Sea World as you have posted it on the wrong article. Feel free to add the content to SeaWorld or SeaWorld San Diego. Sea World (with two words) is an Australian marine animal theme park completely unrelated to those in America (branded SeaWorld, single word). Kind Regards Themeparkgc  Talk  23:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll also check to see if the Australian version has responded to The Cove controversy, as it has reverberated among marine parks throughout the world. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin

OrangeMarlin deleted my comment on his talk page, so I figured I would put it here:

Cla68, OM is a deletionist. Deletionists aren't willing to cooperate to improve an article. Their thing is simply to delete anything they don't like and then to hide behind the rules, which they interpret very narrowly instead of as the broad guidelines that they are meant to be. Deletionists rarely have anything of value to contribute to the encyclopedia, and a great deal of useful information gets removed by them because it isn't properly or immediately documented. You shouldn't expect a reasonable response from this person.B724 (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I've observed, there has been a few problems with some regular editors in some of the science and science-related topics, such as Intelligent Design, in that it seems they want to discredit any ideas that don't match what they see as the "mainstream science" stance on said topic. They appear to be afraid that if they don't discredit the ideas or theories that they regard as "fringe", then someone might accidentally accept those ideas as credible. Of course, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we are not supposed to care which side "wins", we just report what the sources are saying. So, if editors are deleting or reverting reliably-sourced information, and refusing to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise with other editors on the content in question, or engaging in bullying behavior, then there is a problem. I'll let you know if I do an editor behavior RfC on OrangeMarlin. Cla68 (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, I think you are being too fair-minded. The deletionists and so-called skeptics ruined Wikipedia for me, and I no longer participate. There are dozens of them. I'm interested in metaphysical topics, so you can imagine what they did to my articles. (I did my very best to make the articles objective and factual, but they were never satisfied.) Despite the fact that huge swathes of the population believe in things like psychics and ESP, the skeptics allow very little information on those subjects to get through. The encyclopedia is heavily censored. And as you pointed out, their censorship extends to mainstream topics as well. They think they are being objective, but they aren't. My articles were attacked by atheists and Christians, both of whom find metaphysical topics to be threatening. They attack what they don't like, and then they justify it later. And amazingly, the administrators always back them up.

Good luck to you! B724 (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wikibombing

What do you think about adding a summary style paragraph of relevant points from WP:ACTIVIST to Wikipedia:Wikibombing? Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The two essays do appear to be related. When I have time I'll look at doing that or its fine if you or someone else would like to take a stab at it. Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Aren't they both related to WP:COI? Why is that a guideline and not a policy? Shouldn't the finer points of ACTIVIST and BOMB be part of COI? It seems to me that many of these essays are lost children in search of their parent policies and guidelines. Instead of wasting all this time with essays, shouldn't we be strengthening the COI guideline and turning it into policy? As I've said elsewhere, we should encourage people to disclose their COI at every level, to the point where they will willingly give it up in a welcoming atmosphere where it is acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Marathon

I encourage everyone to complete a marathon once as it is an incredible feeling of accomplishment.

Heh. Perhaps you should add "with your doctor's approval". It's probably not for everyone. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U

Thanks for your comments. Do you think it's ready to post? --JN466 12:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm ready if you are. Cla68 (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Okeydoke. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cirt. --JN466 12:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not Sure where you are going with this. I have little doubt it will all true but is it stuff that needs to be said? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Either reword or remove it. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Both Delicious Carbuncle and Jayen 466, the two primary whistleblowers in this episode, were bullied and hectored when they tried to pursue dispute resolution. I think something about it needs to be said in the RfC. Perhaps I'll take you two's advice and make it more generic instead of trying to name names. Cla68 (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Delicious Carbuncle the same person who has written dozens of posts, and started at least six threads, about Cirt on Wikipedia Review? If so, he seems a bit obsessed.   Will Beback  talk  05:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Not helping Will, These are the exact type of post Cla68 was discussing in the RFC. We need to deescalate tensions here while the RFC proceeds. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 05:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Where has Cla68 discussed the off-Wiki harassment of Cirt by Delicious Carbuncle? Perhaps I missed it. As for deescalation, perhaps it's better to get all of this material out in the open. RfCs can cover all the involved people, including Cla68, Delicious Carbuncle, and you. Do you post to WR too?   Will Beback  talk  06:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No actually, I have a strong dislike of WR I find it toxic to collaborative editing. If you have evidence to add Will then add it in the appropriate forum. Your posting here fails to achieve anything but reinforces Cla68 perception of "unnecessary attacks, intimidation, bullying, and criticism" by Cirt's friends. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you'll check the links I posted in the RfC, you may see why Will has taken an interest in this discussion. Cla68 (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC/Cirt

(edit conflict)As part of your evidence against Cirt you pointed to this diff where you Scott Mac criticized Cirt's edit here. Unfortunately, as the article has been deleted, it's hard for us non-admins to how [in]appropriate his edit was. Would you be able to elaborate on the problem besides what you posted on Cirt's talk page? Thanks. Edit: I just realized that it wasn't you, and you don't have the requisite permissions to see the diff. Clearly, however, you were disturbed enough by the edit to bring it up at the RfC/U. Would you be able to elaborate at all on the situation and why you felt it was inappropriate? Not that I have anything against Scott (I don't know him at all), but the mere criticism of one's actions by another user doesn't really count as wrongdoing.Throwaway85 (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It was Scott MacDonald who had a problem with that edit. I was using the diff of Scott's comment to Cirt to illustrate when attention was called once again to Cirt's scientology-related edits to BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

See here. I'll add this link to the RfC. Cla68 (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And this, this, and this. Cla68 (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm seeing two things in those diffs: people making issues out of nothing (of *course* the message to scientology video should be here, it was one of the most notable things about Chanology), and Cirt apologizing for making mistakes going back over two years. I guarantee I've made more mistakes than that and apologized more times, and I'm not even that active. Also, none of it shone any light on the Meade Emory issue, except to include his apparently sincere apology for an apparently honest mistake and that the other editor was reported then blocked by another admin for vandalism. Now, granted, the thrust of some of his work is troubling. I think having an article like List of Scientologists is troubling, but that's only because I don't think it's notable in and of itself, but I'll leave that to the community to decide. As for BLP vios, well, there's a reason I stay away from that area. I find WP:V and WP:NPOV to often be at odds with WP:BLP, as we saw in the Chaka Khan case Scott linked to. I saw many reliable sources making a claim that she denied. In such a contentious situation, people are bound to disagree, but I can't fault him for going with what the majority of the sources said. I can see why you and others might be upset with him, but I also can't see a whole lot that he's done wrong out of malice. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

When I spot-checked articles from the "List of Scientologists" last July, I found some that were four paragraphs in length, and two or three of the paragraphs were entirely about the person's involvement in Scientology. That's why the concern about what Cirt was doing came up in July of last year. So, it's not necessarily the specifics of Cirt's editing that was the problem, it was his focus on detailing so much Scientology stuff in BLP articles. I had thought that he had backed off in July, only to find in December that he was still active with that type of editing. Cla68 (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's fair to say that list has a bit of a creepy vibe, but I also think Scientology itself is pretty creepy. Still, besides having a bit of a POV bent, I can't really see where it breaks policy, which is the main issue. If the policies we've written are fine with having creepy lists like that, then we need to change them and not go hunting after editors who follow them. Does Cirt ride the line? Sure he does, but he seems to be fairly careful not to cross it and fixes things when he does. I just don't see how it warrants the massive rfcu with hundreds of diffs going back years, all covering minor infractions if that. Then again, it's a subject that reasonable people can disagree on, and I respect that you don't find his behaviour acceptable. Thanks for the diffs, at any rate. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk the talk

[8][9] When you accuse someone of something that serious and unethical you should be prepared to follow through. Please post an edit war notice at WP:EW. Otherwise I recommend that you retract your statements. Thanks for your prompt attention.   Will Beback  talk  11:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a rather defensive response, Will. Please don't revert war. Talk pages are there for a reason. Please use them before unilaterally reverting another editor's edits. If you want me to say this on your user talk page, I can. Cla68 (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll start an WP:EW thread myself, and you can post your evidence there. WP:ANEW#User:Will Beback reported by User:Cla68 (Result: )   Will Beback  talk  20:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The reviewing admin found no violation. Please withdraw this allegation which has been proven incorrect.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notification

Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cults The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob

I'm trying hard not to overreact, but if this was anyone less well known they'd have been blocked long ago for the tirade-ish aspects of the ANI comments.

It's clear that a nerve was hit and he's really upset about it, and I am among those who are trying to calm the situation down without escalating it. Several other editors asked him to calm down as well. He's responded inconsistently with a mixture of ignored and rudely deleted comments.

There's a limit, though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

One request to calm down from each editor should be enough. If he doesn't calm, then repeating it over and over will not work. Cla68 (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If he won't calm down, he won't calm down. If he won't calm down and disrupts ANI that badly, you get about 5-6 passes and then even Jimmy would get blocked briefly to stop the situation.

I don't know that the multiple warnings were good per se - but I'm not going to jump straight from "you need to stop" to "you're blocked", especially with someone we all know and respect, especially not when he's righteously angry about something (justified or not, overreacting or not). There's no good answer to this, but people can't blow up noticeboards disruptively like that. Jimmy or an Arbcom sitting member would get blocked for a bit more than this, on ANI or AN.

If there's a better way to do it, I'm all ears. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a similar situation going on right now on someone else's user talk page. What should be done about it? Ignore? Enforce compliance with WP's policies? Tough situations, both. If blocking wasn't such a drama magnet and so much stress for the blocking administrator, I think that would be the way to go in both situations. The fault is Wikipedia's administrative structure, not yours. Cla68 (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw that other one start, and I am not up to engaging, though someone should probably noticeboard it. I am sympathetic to OrangeMarlin's anger and frustration, but those are some really right nasty personal attacks, and that's not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I guess I could get up on my soapbox about how Wikipedia's current structure doesn't give adequate institutional support to its admins, I'm sure you've heard it all before. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I think one of the situations has calmed. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Purple Barnstar
		Your good-faith efforts to make Wikipedia a more neutral site where biographies of living people reflect a balanced view on their subjects regardless of their political or ideological convictions, have made you a target of numerous uncivil attacks. Please accept this barnstar in recognition of your hard work, your honesty, and integrity. DracoE 15:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Cla,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:USS Annapolis ICEX.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 19, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-07-19. howcheng {chat} 19:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period April-June 2011, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

On ArbCom structure

I find it hard to believe that more structure would be even more time-consuming than the status quo. Free form discussions on an 18-member are incredibly wasteful, and I suspect practically anything else would be more efficient. Whether breaking the committee into subgroups, or electing an internal task master—anything so that every thread is not meandering stream of consciousness.

Thank you for your thoughts; I think you are mostly spot-on. Cool Hand Luke 01:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. There are several different ways you all could approach it. I'm not a professional mediator, moderator, or project manager, but I think the approaches such professions take to formalize and structure discussion processes for decision-making might offer something of value to the way you all do things. Cla68 (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

ArbCom seems to be starting another one of their hallmark "omnibus" cases about "Blp Feuding", whatever that is. I am not going to get involved, and hope you won't either. The Cirt-Jayen466 case seems focused and appropriate. You should present your evidence of inappropriate, intimidating comments there. Some of the diffs you cited appear to have crossed the line. I recognize we disagreed about the closure of the RFC. You will note that I made exactly one action, and then left it for others to determine what to do. I don't think my actions need further discussion because it is finished business. While I don't agree with what you did, I have no intention to complain about it, because things are moving along well enough, closed or unclosed. Kind regards, Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You made pejorative comments about the certifiers and endorsers of the RfC, and I was one of them. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not do so. You appear to be reacting to a perceived insult that was not intended. Would you like to discuss this further? Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

As the motions/cases have been presented, the Cirt-Jayen case is independent of all issues such as this, the motion(b) is where any side issues such as this belong. The Cirt-Jayen motion(a) is focused specifically on those two users edit contributions and the dispute between them. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is arduous and tortuous enough as it is without editors needlessly attacking those engaged in the process making it more so. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked in the mirror lately? A lot of things, such as attacks, are in the eye of the beholder. There are two choices: (1) discuss any disagreements and try to resolve them, (2) obtain missile lock on the editor who you perceive to be the source of some umbrage, and pursue them relentlessly until you get what you want. I recommend option (1). You are about to be put under a lot of scrutiny, again, and in spite of a minor recent disagreement, I rather like your contributions. I may not be in the top 90% when it comes to diplomacy, but it was not my intention to make perjorative comments about you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your negative comments when you attempted to unilaterally close that RfC aren't the only issues. Do you know how much time it takes to put something like that RfC together? Because of WP's structure, there isn't an easy way to advertise an RfC to get maximum participation. You have to let it sit and wait for editors to find it. That's another reason why RfCs are usually allowed to run for at least 30 days. So, for you to close it like that was really a slap in the face. How many more editors have participated since you tried to close it, five or six, and how many more have changed their minds after additional evidence was presented, two or three? Has the ArbCom case even opened yet? Not to mention, have you interefered in the past when dispute resolution was attempted with Cirt? It should be possible for Wikipedia to actually establish and enforce a standard of behavior in which editors stop pursuing activist agendas and work with each other, but it will only happen when everyone, including admins of all people, start following the rules consistently and fairly. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

My closure summarized the state of opinions at the time. That was not my opinion; it was a summary of what the participants had said. The matter has moved to arbitration and all your hard work to gather evidence will be utilized. Did you know that I helped created the template system that is currently in use to advertise RFCs? [10] I am keenly aware of the problem of how to advertise them, and have done everything I could think of to help make it better. Jehochman ^Talk 11:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Moosally

Sorry Cla68, but I don't understand. Even if your man didn't meet WP:SOLDIER, how could he fail to meet the general notability guideline? Drmies (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the subject violates the spirit, if not the letter, of our policies and guidelines. Cla68 (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Go away

Keep off my user talk page. If you continue to harass me I will ask for intervention against you. Prioryman (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

User clearly doesn't want to hash it out on his talk page, Cla68, and it's causing more heat than light.

I suggest that you instead bring this up in the upcoming Cirt-JN466 case, which will very likely consider these issues. Cool Hand Luke 19:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. One problem I have with this editor is that he often engages in bollocking other editors he disagrees with in personal terms, amid other things he does, like edit warring to put thinly sourced negative information in the BLPs of people he also apparently disagrees with, but he can't take it when he gets called on it. Cla68 (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, the case has been open for nine days. You've hinted that you're going to post evidence against me, but you have not presented any of it yet. Are you planning to do so still, and if so when can I expect to see it? Since you've been planning this case for months now I expect you have the bulk of it already prepared. I hope it isn't your intention to surprise me with it just before a deadline. It would be more helpful to post what you have so far and edit it later, or send me a copy if you prefer.   Will Beback  talk  06:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know about this. Big implications for Sarah Palin and related. I remember your insistence that articles about her simply had to include implications that she was linked to the 2011 Tucson shooting. Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 08:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you the editor who created articles on politician's mistresses? If you like we can ask to have you added as a party.   Will Beback  talk  09:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Will, you owe Kelly 10 cents. Cla68 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Cla, are you going to post evidence about me, and if so when?   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Evidence for Cirt/Jayen466

Hello Cla68. As the clerk for the Cirt/Jayen466 case, I have removed the "Others" part of your evidence section for this case, as it lies outside of the defined scope for the case. The Cirt/Jayen466 case, as determined by the Arbitration Committee, is to focus only on the conduct of those two editors. While some contextual information may be appropriate, as per my comments to Tryptofish on the evidence talk page, however evidence presented with the intention of seeking sanctions for other editors is not appropriate. If you believe this is a matter of concern, I would encourage you to file your evidence in the related "Manipulation of BLPs" case (linked to in the section above) or open a request for a new case at WP:A/R/C. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please self-revert the recent header "Prioryman" that you just added to he evidence page of this ArbCom case and seek clarification from Hersfold or AlexandrDmitri. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In these circumstances, before even posting a header you should seek clarification. Please do so and self-revert in the meantime. If you do not respond to these messages, that might not help you at a future time. Please reconsider. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Again with the threats. I should charge every editor a dime for making an explicit threat and a nickel for an implied one on my talk page. I think I could probably retire early. Cla68 (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What threats? You are just being advised to exercise caution. So if doubt, ask somebody. For example Cool hand Luke. It's as simple as that. Mathsci (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cla, I think that the kind of evidence you appear to be preparing is, indeed, something that I would like to see come before ArbCom. However, given what I can make out of the confusing messages about the scopes of the cases, my advice (not that you asked for it) would be to present only evidence about Cirt or Jayen at that case, and instead, present the evidence about everyone else at the BLP Manipulation case. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(reply to note on my talk page) That's odd; that doesn't seem to be in keeping with the motion that was passed. I've gotten in touch with an arbitrator (Cavalry) about this, and he and I agree that CHL probably meant the related BLP case. The scope statement the Committee passed was fairly clear that the Cirt/Jayen case was only to focus on the actions of those two users, and that anything else should go in the BLP case. Sorry for the confusion, I didn't realize that you'd been told otherwise before. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(to others) Guys, to keep drama and other issues down, please let the clerks handle clerk stuff. As you know, Arbitration is a very high-tension environment, so it helps to have this stuff come from one source and not from several, most of which are involved in the dispute as well. I appreciate the help, but thanks for understanding. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I'm afraid your addition was inaccurate, and I undid it. I watched and copied the NHK program. Japan knew the US developed atomic bombs, but did not know/suspect exactly what the Tinian planes planned to do. Please rewrite the information. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears we have different recollections/interpretations of what the program was saying. Since Japanese is your first language, I accept what you say the program said and ask that you please rewrite the section to ensure that it is accurate. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think I can rewrite well.
The program was about how they monitored radio messages of US planes and what they found out and thought. And what the Imperial General Headquarters did and did not.
This is the summary of the program.
On August 6, Japan should have been more cautious of Straight Flush first and Enora Gay, The Great Artiste, and Necessary Evil later and should not have lifted the air raid alert. On August 9, they ditected the same pattern happening and reported it to the top five hours before the bombing, but the Imperial General Headquarters did nothing. Japan should have tried to intercept Bockscar. There were Kawanishi N1K, the one and only possible type to fight against B29, at the Omura air field and they could intercept. The Nagasaki bombing might have been prevented.
In short, people in the Imperial General Headquarters were a bunch of fools, the program looks very serious and maybe it's really serious though. Oda Mari (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, I understand better now. I'll rewrite the section. Cla68 (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Threat Charges

Please remove this page. WP:UP#POLEMIC.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If I don't use that diff in the ongoing ArbCom case, I'll remove your name. In the meantime, perhaps it would be a good idea if you stopped threatening other editors? Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll do that as soon as you stop beating your wife. ;)   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Why are you acting so hatefully toward me? Jehochman ^Talk 03:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to answer this question, or do you feel that I am an unperson? Jehochman ^Talk 05:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess my later question is answered. We're done here, and it is a very sad day. Jehochman ^Talk 03:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Cla68/threat charges

User:Cla68/threat charges, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/threat charges and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cla68/threat charges during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.   Will Beback  talk  07:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

On unauthorized emails and ArbCom evidence

It would probably be best if you don't use the unauthorized emails as evidence, and certainly not as carelessly as you have to date. Currently, you cite that incomplete and unauthorized record to claim that a user "apparently" lied to a third party who hasn't even complained about the alleged lie. This isn't helpful, and is a bit ironic in a BLP case. Please take it down immediately.

More generally, ArbCom has access to and familiarity with the complete unedited archive. It's unclear how commentary on a partial record would help clarify any editing issue with Prioryman. For example, when you opine that Prioryman should have been reminded to obey previous restrictions, we happen know that he was reminded and agreed to abide with existing restrictions.

If you believe he has violated those restrictions, it would be more useful to identify those violations. If your grievance is actually with ArbCom, please take it up with ArbCom rather than Prioryman.

Note that I am only speaking for myself here. ArbCom as a whole might formulate a general practice regarding unauthorized and leaked email evidence. Cool Hand Luke 17:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll amend the evidence. It's true that I'm extremely irritated with ArbCom for enabling a repeat offender like that. You all are supposed to be correcting the behavior of problematic editors and activists, not facilitating their efforts. Not only did the Committee enable this guy's editing, you kept it a secret from the community his abuse of Right to Vanish. Cla68 (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed some of your evidence. I'd like it to be trimmed more, but I'll leave that for you to consider. This case isnt about RtV (That would be an interesting rfc/rfar, ..!) so the main issue wrt Prioryman is any involvement in BLPs and related policies/essays, etc. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Cla68. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manipulation of BLPs Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 618 words and 37 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 04:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

やっぱり, ちきしょう! Cla68 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

btw, this doesnt suggest what you have put in the evidence. The blocking checkuser/admin may have just noticed it was not blocked. I recommend talking asking Avi. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are serious about this offer will you withdraw your evidence? Prioryman (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll modify it to note what you said, then post a motion on the workshop requesting that no additional sanctions be imposed. Cla68 (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal note this time, since the bot won't talk to you again about this case; the bot reports that you have 74 diffs in your evidence section in the BLP case; the limit is 50, so if you could shorten that down, it would be appreciated. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think all the diffs are equally important, so please flip a coin and remove whichever ones you need to get it under the limit. Cheers. Cla68 (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest removing them all, as suitable sanction for this editor's uncooperative behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 13:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this permission for me to remove your diffs about me? ;-) Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Which case are we talking about here? I thought Hersfold was clerk for the Jayen/Cirt case. I don't think anyone but a clerk should touch my evidence sections. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right that Hersfold is the clerk in Jayen/Cirt. However, he runs a bot on all cases (as I understand it) to police evidence length. I presume he is notifying you here in a personal capacity ("personal note this time") rather than as a clerk. You're on 71 diffs now, btw. Prioryman (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Mikemikev A.K.Nole

I have removed edits to your subpage by an ipsock of ArbCom banned/community banned editor Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Although I haven't checked, he probably took these from edits by me. For details of socking by Mikemikev, see for example Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive as well as the two sockpuppet category pages. The whole range of vodafone IPs was blocked by an arbitrator for three months earlier in the year because of his socking. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally if this is a joke page and you have banned users editing it, might it be an idea not to link it to an ArbCom evidence page? That's how I found it (it's not on my watchlist, since it's a joke page). Thanks again, Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but my sub-page is on my watchlist. If it wasn't the banned user who said those things, then what's the problem with them being listed there? I found those quotes to be good examples of implied and explicit threats. If you aren't sure that they are yours, then what's the problem with me adding them back? Cla68 (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Having checked my emails from arbitrators and done a careful analysis of all the edits in the IP range, previously blocked for 3 months by Shell Kinney, it seems that the first edit was made by puppetmaster A.K.Nole (talk · contribs) and not by Mikemikev (talk · contribs). Sorry about that inaccuracy. I have mentioned the link you made to your subpage from an ArbCom page to an ArbCom clerk. At the moment I am trying to clarify with checkusers on ArbCom the precise division of ipsocks between A.K.Nole and Mikemikev. The edit to your subpage is included in that discussion. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Since you seem unwilling to talk to me, which is odd given that you continue talking about me, I have left formal questions for you here. Please answer them. Jehochman ^Talk 15:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Moot. I removed the questions as they have no longer helping to resolve anything. Jehochman ^Talk 22:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence about Jehochman

First, I have removed the last sentence about Jehochman from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence, because it was frivolous. Second, it is my view that the preceding paragraph is inaccurate, because Jehochman's closing comments at the RFC does not support your allegations. I will await your view on this issue over the next 24 hours; if you have not responded, I will summarily redact your evidence, because unfounded submissions are not accepted, and because arbitration is not a forum for slandering one's fellow editors. Thank you, AGK [•] 13:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

AGK, when someone is in the middle of posting evidence in a case, perhaps you should let them finish it before undertaking any action that might not be helpful in doing so. Cla68 (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand that your evidence may not have been complete, and I note that you have since amended it. However, only submissions that are finalised and have substantiation are acceptable on the evidence page. If you were in the middle of writing evidence, I should not have allowed discreditable evidence to stand and "let you finish it"; instead, you ought to have waited. I note that you have removed all submissions relating to Jehochman, which resolves the initial complaint. Thank you, AGK [•] 10:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Cla68 and I have not been very often on the same side of an argument. However, the requirement that only finalised evidence can go onto the Evidence page of an ArbCom case seems to be a recent invention, and one that has been communicated so badly that I read about this for the very first time here. This is very much not the way a Wiki works - see m:Eventualism. I can see where you are coming from, but you are coming alone and without widely established consensus. Please follow the principle of least surprise in situations like this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same, AGK. I've been in several ArbCom cases, and the evidence never had to be "complete" before posting. We always had latitude to edit in place. When did this change, and where is the notice? I see no such information on the editnotice of the evidence page; surely this should be modified if no one is to be allowed to enter their evidence in stages. Also, the Guidelines for presenting evidence and arguments fails to mention this new requirement. Is it possible you misspoke? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated mud-slinging—which, forgive me, Cla68's evidence was—has never been acceptable, and I have seen this enforced by the clerks in the past, usually on the workshop page but also in the evidence phase. Admittedly, evidence has never had to be completed before submission, but it must not be unsubstantiated and must have a clear basis before it can be accepted. It is not permissible to write up an accusation, and say "But I don't have to give any diffs for that, because I'm not finished". I am happy to refer this to the arbitrators for clarification, but frankly I would have thought this kind of thing would be rather obvious, especially to experienced contributors. I'm watching this page, and will see any reply. Regards, AGK [•] 16:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Cla68 and I seem to have worked out our differences. This issue not worth any further discord. Jehochman ^Talk 16:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Then I was correct; you accidentally misspoke when you said "only submissions that are finalised... are acceptable" - no new rule has been enacted. No worries, accidents of phrasing happen. Thanks for clarifying and correcting your error. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not permissible to write up an accusation, and say "But I don't have to give any diffs for that, because I'm not finished". Unless you're an arbitrator yourself, in which case this doesn't apply at all, even well after you're finished. want the diffs? Just trying to provide a helpful clarification. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence against me

Please put back the evidence you posted against me. We should deal with it finally. In the alternative you could post a statement that you no longer have any dispute with me. Now that we have come this far down the path, we should finish it one way or the other. Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No. In the future, please be careful about undertaking any actions which might disrupt the dispute resolution process that any editors are engaged in. The process is painful enough already as is. I'll post this comment on your userpage to ensure that I've filled the square. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Minimalist running

Welcome to the club! I switched to Vibram FiveFingers last year after having knee trouble, and it's done wonders (also been taking glucosamine supplements). Kelly ^hi! 17:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I use Vibrams also. I wish that I had switched years ago. My arches and lower legs are still a little sore after each run, so I don't do it on consecutive days. In the intervening days I do something non-impact, such as the eliptical machine or swimming. Did your running speed improve after making the switch? Cla68 (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely...though I noticed an improvement in endurance first. Yeah, I still remember that calf pain after first switching...I way overdid it at first because it felt so good. Kelly ^hi! 00:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that my respiration and heart rate return to normal much quicker after a run in the vibrams. Other people warned me not to allow how great it feels to make me push myself too fast, so I've been able to avoid that so far. It has really helped bring back the thrill of running. Cla68 (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Vitamin D can also work. After I started to take 5,000 IU/day a few years ago I made a lot of progress. I have now increased the dose, such that the total intake is about 10,000 IU/day from supplements plus vitamin D production in the skin. I explain here the rationale for this dose. Count Iblis (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are about be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be reader by the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors, as well as refrain from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour within the comments section. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Concepts

Please email me about a topic that, judging from your posts, is of concern to you: encyclogalactica@aol.com Thank you for your time. Killer440 (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Will Beback

To all interested parties, I have started a draft editor conduct RfC on Will Beback here. If interested, please help add examples of behavior you feel should be addressed. Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Please note this part of the proposed MBLP ArbCom decision:

• If these parties are before us once again, I anticipate having little patience for any unsupported case requests or allegations, but I also anticipate that in any future case brought based on editing after this one closes, the evidence and issues will be more focused and we will be able to hone in on any problematic user conduct that may continue.

I trust that you will not be adding any unsupported allegations.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that concerns should be addressed to Will before starting the RFC, possibly by you Cla68, and a totally uninvolved editor, perhaps Mastcell. If those discusions fail to resolve concerns, you can start the RFC. Will, have you considered my advice about Tim Cook? Jehochman ^Talk 05:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Me and several other editors have tried dispute resolution with Will in the past, including asking him to take a break from the LaRouche topic after it became evident that he was trying the patience of the regulars at the BLP Noticeboard [11]. The inappropriate questioning of editors about their religious beliefs during the Cirt RfC further reinforced my opinion that community comment is the next step to address the behavior in question. Cla68 (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider being ask to leave Wikipedia a real form of dispute resolution. To Jehochman - could you point out which advice that was - so much has been written in the past week that I may have missed it.   Will Beback  talk  05:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And, to the extent that Cla68's concerns are with the LaRouche articles, I'd note that he ignored requests to join mediation.   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not what happened Will. That episode will be included in the RfC. Self-servingly distorting events is not helpful. Cla68 (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm speaking of this: [12] How is it a distortion to say that you would not join mediation?   Will Beback  talk  06:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, it will be covered in the RfC. Cla68 (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, do you think it's appropriate for someone who is either hiding their WP username, or is evading a block, to add evidence to an RFCU? It's on your user page so you can control who edits there.   Will Beback  talk  05:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Diffs? Jehochman ^Talk 05:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

[13]   Will Beback  talk  05:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Linking to this account is just plain insulting and may show the mindset of the editor.[14]   Will Beback  talk  06:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to see potentially serious matters undermined by anybody playing games. I will make sure that editor doesn't disrupt this process again. (Cla68, pipe up if you feel that I am getting in the way.) Jehochman ^Talk 06:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if "Will Bareback" was an actual past account of Will's or not, so I was going to ask him about it before posting the final RfC. The other edits the IP has made appear to be helpful, so I don't have a problem with the IP helping out. Will, do you think one possible reason someone may be using an IP is to avoid being the recipient of threatening behavior, as occurred today to Keithbob? Cla68 (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is inconsistent with dispute resolution standards. Logging out to avoid scrutiny is also a violation of WP:SOCK. If you are endorsing and allowing the use of socks in an RFCU then I would have to complain about that. If you are interested in resolving a dispute rather than creating a new one, then you'll do the right thing.   Will Beback  talk  08:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the merits, it is not allowed to log out to avoid scrutiny. If somebody is fearful of retaliation, they can email content to me, or possibly others, who will consider posting it. I would only do this for an editor in good standing, and for content that is (a) relevant, and (b) based upon verifiable evidence. I would post the content with a note that somebody in good standing had sent it to me, and that I accept responsibility for posting it. Cla68, may we assume that any content posted thus far by the IP has been reviewed and adopted as if posted by you? (If anything doesn't meet your standards, please remove it.) Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, I see you have recruited Keithbob to endorse your RfCU. However I think that goes beyond what is allowed by the rules. The two people endorsing an RFC/U need to have both tried to resolve the same dispute. You two seem to be adding evidence about entirely separate disputes.   Will Beback  talk  01:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, I am willing to make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute, and if that fails I could endorse the RfC. Will, how do you feel about the allegations shaping up? Do you hold that your editing has been perfect, or are you willing to concede that some has been sub-optimal and you'd consider making necessary changes to your editing style? Feel free to pick and choose the criticisms you think are valid and not valid. We can continue this discussion at any convenient venue. Jehochman ^Talk 02:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask this: what is "the dispute"? Not a list of every bad edit I've ever made, but the singular dispute that Cla68 wants to resolve.   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps you should ask Sarah Palin, given that you pressed hard to give her responsibility for the 2011 Tucson shooting] in Public image of Sarah Palin and elsewhere. Kelly ^hi! 03:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman, I initiated this RfC based on my own, limited view of Will's editing behavior. As I peruse his editing history, and other editors like Keithrob add their own observations, a pattern may develop, or it may not. Therefore, it's premature to ask Will if he is willing and able to change. I'm conflicted about continuing to develop the RfC on-wiki. On one hand it allows other editors to chip in and help, and it makes it easy to wikify it as it goes along. On the other hand, it will take awhile to complete. I can take it offline and finish it there before posting if that's more desirable. Cla68 (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

RFC/Us exist to resolve a dispute. They do not exist to provide a forum for general criticism of an editor. Again, what is the dispute?   Will Beback  talk  03:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Years ago, in response to a BLP consensus at Talk:John Edwards, I wrote John Edwards extramarital affair - an article that is even now basically the same the version I wrote years ago,. I've tried hard to promote neutrality in political articles - I was the one who proposed community probation and more community input and admin involvement on articles related to Sarah Palin - and helped point out admin misconduct at the ArbCom Sarah Palin wheel war case...in which the involved admins got a wrist-slap at the time but were eventually de-sysopped and banned.

Around the time of the 2011 Tucson shooting, Will Beback started pushing negative information into Palin articles. I had been involved with the Palin articles for a couple of years - Will Beback went to WP:ANI and portrayed my long involvement with the articles at WP:COI, though I had never made any puffery edits to the articles involved. As a result, I abandoned involvement with political articles Kelly ^hi! 04:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the kind of pattern I'm talking about. Kelly, your input in the RfC, if willing, is welcome. Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Kelly please provide a link for that ANI. Was it this one [15] (section headed "Biased editing concerns" et seq.), from January 2011, where WB (1) offered numerous diffs as evidence of your allegedly biased editing in Palin articles and (2) contrasted the 3,700 word article on John Edwards's extramarital affair (an article to which you were a "prolific contributor," WB said) with your apparent view, according to WB, that 160 words on the association of Palin's rhetoric to the Tucson shooting was too much weight, etc.? I note you say that as a result of the ANI you abandoned involvement with political articles. Perhaps the ANI you refer to was some considerable time after January. You were still involved with Sarah Palin pages in June 2011. Writegeist (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, again I remind you that RFC/Us exist to settle disputes. There is no current dispute at Sarah Pailin, at least that I'm involved in.   Will Beback  talk  07:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• All, I appreciate the inputs so far. I'm going to take the RfC offline for awhile and continue working on it. I'll post it again in my userspace when it's almost completed, or from time to time when it needs to be wikified. If anyone has any more inputs during that time, just post them to that page in my userspace or email me. Cla68 (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Do what you will, but please keep in mind that both certifiers need to have sought resolution of the same active dispute, and that's what the RFC should focus on, not every bad edit I've ever made.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Irregular oversight by Jehochman

Please see the discussion on my talk page before it is disappeared.24.18.132.102 (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As I assume that you've seen this, why do you suppose Jehochman deleted my question?24.18.132.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC).

I don't see any need for me to get involved in that. Cla68 (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Wikipedian.

You purport to bravely address problems, but where they don't fit your political agenda (e.g. McGomi) you're no different than those you challenge.24.18.132.102 (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

'True' Wikipedians have political agendas? That's news to me. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate your comment

Thanks much, Cla68, for responding to NW on my talk page. What was so odd about it is that the answers to those questions are well known. He need only have followed a couple of the threads that he referred to. Or asked his buddies. It, frankly, felt like yet one more instance of intimidation and harassment, especially since he's the Admin who banned Olive. I can't believe how much I've been persecuted for COI, including by Will Beback. But my editing and behavior has always been compliant. I've never been blocked, never received a warning from an Admin on my Talk page. Arbcom didn't find any facts against me last year, even though Will Beback presented diffs going all the way back to 2006, when I first arrived. I was banned on one occasion at WP:AE by Future Perfect for two months, and how many diffs did he present as evidence? Zero. I still don't know why I was banned. I'm glad you and JN and others have the courage to take on powerful factions and expose them. TimidGuy (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the TM topic area was handled by ArbCom, you don't need to go through ANI or a similar admin forum if you encounter more inappropriate questioning such as what took place today. If it happens again, don't respond, just immediately notify ArbCom. Cla68 (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Good suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed

An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

1. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
2. Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
3. To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
4. If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Almirante Latorre

Got a question for you, seeing as you are Japan-based and are much better-suited to answering this question... do you have any sources that say parts from the Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre were used to restore Mikasa? I haven't found any pre-Wikipedia sources that say it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And if I've asked you this before, just tell me. I have a poor memory. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you have asked me this before. Let me see what I can find out. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick poke on this. If you can't find anything, that's fine. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche

I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that the mystery RfC is about a dispute over the LaRouche articles, and that Keithbob has made a significant effort to resolve that dispute?   Will Beback  talk  04:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

9 11 Template link

Don't you do it either.[16] Wait for the discussion to end and see what the conclusion is. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

More general note

There's no reason a civil and rational disagreement about content has to cause any animosity between us, and I'll do what I can to see it doesn't. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Your inqury

I'm not sure if you noticed my question to you on my talkpage. If you wish to follow up on the issue you raised, please reply there at your convenience. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIV / Established editors

Very concisely put. No chance you have any thoughts on how to better handle matters like this in the future? NW (Talk) 03:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have plenty of ideas about how to make it easier for admins to enforce the rules and to do so more consistently. I probably should write it up sometime in an essay or general RfC. Is there currently an "admin guidebook" out there anywhere I could look at to see the current state of guidance given to Wikipedia admins? Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the admin handbook given out for admins who want to undertake civility blocks. More generally, the New admin school is probably the closest thing you are looking for, but it's incomplete in many respects. There is general reading list for administrators which points to the list of policies to know, but there is no fully-fleshed out "best practices" page. There are also scattered pages throughout Wikipedia that give useful and generally-followed advice, such as the ones listed here for sockpuppetry or here for copyright, but they aren't systematically organized in any meaningful way. NW (Talk) 12:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will read through them. What I'd really like to develop are if/then checklists for different but common situations which admins could follow. Cla68 (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert warring

A single revert is not revert warring. Where did you get that idea? have you never heard of WP:BRD?   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi

I'm thinking about sending Akagi for an ACR pretty soon. Do you want some more time to work on it or is it OK as is?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's ready for A-class. There are a few more sources I would like to check before it goes to FAC, however. Cla68 (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Wpreviewsock (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Titan's cross nomination

Hello, Cla68. I see that you are a member of WP:OMT. I am reminding you that there is a discussion [here] about whther or not to award Bahamut0013, a member of OMt who passsed awsay a short while ago, the Titan's Cross in silver. your opinion will be welcome. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert Warring

[17] Please don't revert war at the LaRouche movement article, especially when there is no consensus on the talk page to remove the material. Hipocrite (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Per the BLP Noticeboard, there is sufficient concern over the nature of the content to warrant its removal under BLP policy. I believe you have revert warred to try to keep the material in the article. Cla68 (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, please try harder so assume good faith. Your behavior in this recent LaRouche hoopla demonstrates (IMHO) your failure at times to assume good faith. This recent edit of yours seems to be an excellent example. [18] I believe that your failure in assuming that your fellow Wikipedians are sincerely trying to improve the Encyclopedia is what lead to your restrictions in the CS area of the project. If you were able to better assume good faith in others it will likely make your own experience here more pleasant but perhaps more importantly, it will make editing here more pleasant for others. Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors (making sure ot note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Bullying

Refusing to discuss edits while at the same time claiming there's consensus to make them is unproductive and uncollegial. It's essentially bullying. If you don't want to be part of the solution then please don't be part of the problem either.   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Will, you appear to be trying to use delaying tactics, in addition to revert warring, ever since the RfC completed. When there is consensus to do something in an article, it isn't helpful to use various tactics, such as revert warring and accusations, to try to keep it from happening. Cla68 (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's called "discussion". It's how Wikipedia works.   Will Beback  talk  03:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

So why rush to a user's talk page to try to quash discussion, instead of simply stating you argument on the article talk page? Kelly ^hi! 03:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Just the opposite - I'd like Cla68 to engage in discussion rather than just making pronouncements.   Will Beback  talk  04:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess we all find it unpleasant when someone says something we don't agree with. Remember, however, "We are usually convinced more easily by reasons we have found ourselves than by those which have occurred to others." - Blaise Pascal. Cla68 (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

On the editor base

You say:

Wikipedia needs more "normal" people as participants. By "normal", I mean people who simply edit Wikipedia as a casual hobby, maybe spending an hour or two on it each week gradually helping build articles that interest them, as opposed to the current situation where about 1,000 regular editors are obsessively doing everything. Casual editors just don't have any patience for the kind of treatment they get when they try to deal with someone in the ID, science, anti-cult, pikachu, or whatever cabal. I don't blame them at all.

I think most editors active within a month are normal hobbyists in this sense. For precisely this reason, they are no help with wiki-controversies. They spend a few hours tending to their sport, or their TV show, or whatever interests them. Why would they wander into ANI to participate in passive-aggressive clean-language flame wars, or wander into hot topics where partisans are liable to drag them into other forums and perhaps even invade the quiet articles where our hobbyists dwell.

There are a lot of these people, but they don't engage in the drama, nor would they be effective at it if they did, due to time constraints. Who can blame them? Cool Hand Luke 03:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion. I can speak from my own experience. After editing Wikipedia casually for a couple of months, I wandered over to an article that I hadn't looked at before and which I can't mention. After my attempted edits were quickly reverted, I was treated rather rudely on the talk page. I was really surprised, because I hadn't witnessed that type of behavior in Wikipedia up to that point. Then, you know what happened a year or so later when I was following links (starting in Wikipedia) and stumbled onto a thread on Wikipedia Review, a site I hadn't visited before, about a certain BLP article. I then went and tried to make a few edits to that article. I'm still feeling the repercussions of what happened next. Although I stuck around, I can't imagine that many other people would put up with that time-consuming nonsense that I've elected to be part of.

What about an editor who edits their favorite TV show until an activist editor shows up, who also happens to be a long-time, established Wikipedia editor, perhaps an admin? Perhaps the new editor to the article is in love with one of the actors in the show, or perhaps the show covered a controversial topic, such as alternative medicine, or a political candidate, and the editor wants to make sure the "truth", no matter what, is reflected in the article. If the regular editor gets tired of being pushed around by the established editor, and attempts to utilize the dispute resolution process, several friends of the established editor will show up and, in an ad hominem fashion, highlight every little thing the casual editor has done wrong. The casual editor will, of course, be taken aback at the unexpectedly hostile treatment. You think this doesn't happen that often? I know it happens, because some editors who this has happened to have emailed me to tell me about it and explain that it is one of the reasons they never became very active in Wikipedia, or stopped being active.

Wikipedia's culture needs to be changed. It needs to stop tolerating bullying, game-playing, and activist editing. It needs to implement an orderly, efficient, consistent, and effective editor-behavior management system. Cla68 (talk) 05:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

One other thing, if there were more casual editors in Wikipedia, it would help blunt the tactics used by activist cabals. When a casual editor stumbles onto a controversial topic, or an argument at ANI, reads the thread, and gives and opinion, it just might be the vote which breaks the impasse and gets a decision made. Otherwise, it's the same old regular editors arguing with each other endlessly with the goal of maintaining the status quo so their editing agenda can continue unmolested. As I said in the ACTIVIST essay, activist editors don't want random editors coming by "their" articles and trying to make any changes or voting in content RfCs. More, as in thousands, of casual editors would help keep small groups of editors from taking over topics and bullying other editors. Cla68 (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the casual and quiet type of editors are those most likely to completely quit or leave one of the all too common wiki fights because they're here just to have fun. Whereas those who are in cabals or pushing their view will stick it out because they have an agenda--this type of editor has way too much influence on wiki and is a major reason why wiki is broken. I recently saw a comment about an RFC on the RFA process, but that RFC misses the point. It's not just RFA that's broken, the whole system is broken and needs a major overhaul.PumpkinSky talk 10:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Fixing the RfA system is addressing a symptom, not the underlying problem. Editing Wikipedia in areas in which established editors have taken over isn't fun for casual editors. Cla68 (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've copied my post and yours to Wikipedia_talk:RfA_reform_2011#It is the system not just RFA.PumpkinSky talk 23:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

Hi! I rewrote the site layout section. It would be grateful if you could check and correct my English. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Akagi ACR

There are some issues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi regarding sourcing of photos and formatting of notes that you need to address.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

When was the Kure Museum photo book published? And do you remember where we had a long discussion at a FAC about the proper licensing for it?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm traveling right now, but I'll try to find it as soon as I can. In the meantime, please ask Oda-san, as she was involved. Cla68 (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I found the original, lengthy, discussion on the Haruna FAC thanks to comments on Oda-san's talk page. What material would you like to add before I sent it up to FAC?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorta related, but what books would you recommend for articles on the later IJN carrier classes? I have the Osprey, which is pretty useless and know about the stuff on combinedfleet.com, but it's going to be hard to write the class articles without more info on intended use, etc. Is Ugaki's memoirs actually useful for late-war carrier-related things?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND ARTICLE

Check out Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND ARTICLE ... Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

Battle of Guadalcanal

Can you shed any light on the mysterious classification of this action as the 'second' Allied offensive of WW-II Pacific? MacArthur had just had to threaten to resign so as to conduct a forward defense (see Brisbane Line, but better yet pp-290-300 of American Caesar.) when Nimitz sent the Marines. The Japanese initiated the Kokoda Trail Battle, their second straight defeat at the hands of MacArthur and the Aussies (and later GIs) fighting along that trail. (It doesn't qualify as a campaign despite some editors calling it that.) In short, I've never ever encountered a single phrase elsewhere which even suggested it was the second offensive in 57 years. // FrankB 02:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Your changes seem fine to me (except please don't refer to the Japanese as "Japs"). Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	A long overdue barnstar, for your attention and vigilance in relation to advocacy issues in Wikipedia, and championing fair play. JN466 17:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Guadalcanal Campaign

Hi, Due to fiddling by a few editors, the first two paras of this article no longer make much sense. It seems to claim that the Allies launched the Kokoda Track Campaign, and bizarrely states that this and the Guadalcanal Campaign aimed to protect the line of communications between Australia and India. The stuff about protecting Australia from invasion is also nonsense. Could you revert this back to whatever the last good version was? Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. Looks like you took care of it. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't actually, but I just did :) Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm planning on getting Air raids on Japan up to A class standard over the next few weeks. Any comments on the article as it currently stands or changes to it would be great if you have time. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

MILHIST Military Aviation Questionaire

Hi Cla68! As your MILHIST Military Avation Task Force coordinator, I'd like to conduct a short questionaire to give me an idea of what you would the task force to achieve and the capabilities of yours that might contribute positively to the task force. The four questions of this questionaire are:

1. What are your strengths on Wikipedia?
2. Which four military aviation articles would you like to see be promoted to at least GA?
3. What detailed resources (books, journals, etc) about military aviation do you have access to? Please provide the publications' authors, titles and ISSNs/ISBNs.
4. Which three military aviation articles are you wiling to provide assistance? This can be expansion, copyediting, reference formatting, etc.

Please reply by copying and pasting the following at User talk:Sp33dyphil#MILHIST Military Aviation questionnaire and filling it out.

; ~~~
#My strengths
#Articles I'd like to see the task force improve
#:
#:
#:
#:
#Sources which I have
#:
#:
#Articles I'm willing to provide assistance
#:

Thank you for your assistance. Regards --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Who to ask

Your questions about Sue Gardner's evaluation are better placed to members of the HR-Committee of the board, who can give you details.

I can assure you that you will be sorely disappointed though. Your usual hostility hinges on an assumption that we aren't doing things in the right way, when we are. There is a written evaluation, it does take into account quantifiable goals as well as other metrics.

I'd like to suggest that rather than going around blustering with a chip on your shoulder, you drop the attitude and volunteer to actually help. Your snide tone is useless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well looking at Cla68's contributions, he/she does seem to spend a lot of time helping the project by largely actually editing content. Have you considered the possibility that your arrogance, as exampled by this post, might actually contribute to people feeling the need to follow Wikipedia Review?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, I think my tone with my questions was fine. Here's the thing, it shouldn't be hard for me to find the Foundation's annual goals and performance metrics. Or, it shouldn't be difficult for you to link to them if asked. You are a member of the board, so share equal responsibility with the rest of the board for answering questions like that, because it is your job to do so. When I see Sue Gardner, in a formal presentation, identify several new problems that aren't listed in the Foundation's five-year plan, then I expect to see the Foundation's action plan to address the problems publicly posted. I still haven't found it yet. If it isn't, I assume you, of all people, being heavily involved in the Foundation's public face, would be urging the Foundation to get the plan posted, and soon. Please, get busy doing your job, ALL your job, and I'll keep busy, which I have been doing all along, trying to build a credible 'pedia (have you seen that list of FAs on my user page?). Agreed? Cla68 (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, Cla has written a bunch of featured content, you haven't. Think about that then next time you fly first class, or accept a five figure speaking fee, because it's all based off the work of Cla and many others actually creating content. --PumknPi (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Starting this past year, the annual plan includes specific targets. This year's targets were summarized in the announcement of the plan. – SJ + 14:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy birthday!

I have no idea of when your actual birthday was, but regarding this edit,[19] I wish you a happy birthday, no matter how belated! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It was last month. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Need your expertise

There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.[20]

This quote was expressed by Commander Adama in the fictional Battlestar Galactica episode "Water (Battlestar Galactica)". I'm curious about the military history behind it in RL, and the notable thinkers who have discussed it in the literature. Thanks for any pointers. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't recall ever being involved in that debate, so I don't have a current base for giving any information on background behind that thought. I think I'll ask it on Quora and see what it shakes out. Do you have a Quora account? Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Thanks for looking into this for me. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I had some browser problems, but have now posted the question in Quora here (need a Quora account to view). I will post the replies, if any. Cla68 (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, earlier today, Jill Tarter announced that SETI is receiving funds from the Air Force to search Kepler 22 and surrounding systems. Viriditas (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: according to the Air Force, they are helping fund SETI so they can have time on the Allen Telescope Array for their own military use. According to SETI, "Additional funds necessary for observatory re-activation and operations are being provided by the United States Air Force as part of a formal assessment of the instrument’s utility for Space Situational Awareness (see www.seti.org/afspc for more information)."[21] Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess the USAF wants to use it to track or map objects in space. Cla68 (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, especially space junk. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: I think I found the answer to my question: Posse Comitatus Act. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. According to the the article, it's been suspended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 which says that any U.S. citizen suspected of terrorism can be indefinitely detained. Viriditas (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The bill has passed the Senate and the House. According to Hugh Jim Bissell on Daily Kos:

The act authorizes the US military to take action within the borders of the United States, to indefinitely detain US citizens, and to deny US citizens their Article III rights to a jury trial. All these measures are in direct conflict with the rights of US citizens as set forth in the US constitution.[22]

I think we have a bit of a problem here. Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No one has answered the question yet in Quora which surprises me. I could be wrong, but I don't think that bill authorizes the military to actually investigate and arrest non-military US citizens. What it does is authorize the use of military detention facilities and accompanying military personnel to hold terrorism suspects indefinitely, whether they are US citizens or not. From what I understand, top military leaders would strenuously protest any attempt to use the US military as an investigative law enforcement agency within the US, for various reasons. Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you heard of the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933? It "nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens. With Nazis in powerful positions in the German government, the decree was used as the legal basis of imprisonment of anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazis...The decree is considered by historians to be one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany." This act was put into place due to the fear of Communist terrorists. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Just saw this over at The End of America and though it might interest you. Author Naomi Wolf has observed and described ten steps that societies follow on the road from democracy to outright fascism. Here they are:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Treat all political dissedents to be traitors.
10. Suspend the rule of law

Just FYI... Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I took you seriously

So I thought I'd go see what's up with WR. You gave a passionate defense of it as somehow useful to Wikipedia.

What was just about the first thing I found? You speculating in a disgusting, juvenile, and insulting manner about my personal finances.

I was disappointed, but I also must admit: it's about what I expected from you and from WR.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, how many featured articles have you written? Cla's written a bunch. It's perfectly reasonable for the people who built this project to be interested in the fact that you are making a living off their back. You are a public figure, Jimbo, and this is the life you chose. --PumknPi (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Jimbo, is this the post you are wining about? Because I don't see anything "disgusting or juvenile". You might find it insulting, personally, but the truth isn't always kind. --PumknPi (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Care to point out the non juvenile and non disgusting bits in this little dicussion? John lilburne (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you're the one being insulting here, Jimbo. This really shows your complete lack of professionalism. Silverseren^C 17:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I love it when Wikipedians use words like "professionalism", because they have such delightfully idiosyncratic definitions of the term. Is it "professional" to speculate online about the personal life of other people you work with? You can probably guess how a truly professional organization would deal with a volunteer who did something like that. MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've never taken Jimbo seriously, and consistently find juvenile and disgusting articles on wikipedia. Too bad Jimbo doesn't help edit it. Maybe Jimbo is just displaying a complex sense of humor on Cla68's talk page. Cheeky monkey! Cookiehead (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's the situation, as I see it. Cla68 sometimes has problems assuming good faith in fellow Wikipedia editors. This problem has even manifested itself with the founder of Wikipedia. Cla68 has problems assuming good faith especially when someone banned from editing Wikipedia complains on Wikipedia Review about a Wikipedia editor in good standing. It appears to me that Cla68 may fancy himself some kind of hero over on Wikipedia review. Cla68 is a most excellent editor in certain areas. When he is trying to be a hero to the WR crowd he can be dysfunctional IMHO. I think his Climate Change editing was one example. CC is an example where Cla68 fancies himself some kind of hero that fights "activists". Regarding the comments here about Jimbo, I'm sure that Jimbo does most all of his article edits using another account. It would be awkward trying to follow the concensus model if one of the editors was the famous Jimbo Wales. Bill Huffman (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

so you're asserting that Wales edits anonymously when trying to be consistent with Wikipedia's ideal standards of consensus editing, but as himself when he wants people to know who it is that is weighing in on any issue/editor/article, and so presumably have more effect on "consensus" due to status? Cookiehead (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, didn't you once publically say that you were "set for life" after your years spent trading in the Chicago commodities exchange, or something like that? If you have spoken thusly on your finances, it is part of your public persona. If what you said publically is false, then it should also be publically discussed. Furthermore, at least in the past, on your advertising page for your public speaking business, you said that you would only fly first class. If you aren't as rich as you have implied that you are, then who is paying for you to fly first class, the WMF? If not them, who? Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess the obvious question is what business is it of yours? Prioryman (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo is Wikipedia's de facto spokesman. If the WMF is serious about their product and brand, and I think it's obvious what they need to do. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And you're free not to donate to the WMF if you feel that it is spending its money unwisely on first-class air fares. I don't understand why Jimbo posted on your page in the first place. He says "it's about what I expected from you." Then what was the point of his post? It comes perilously close to trolling. Perhaps someone should issue a formal warning? ;) ScottyBerg (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as the WMF keeps pretending to provide leadership to Wikipedia, I will keep pretending to support their funding. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that both you and Jimbo are trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. I wish you both luck. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. I will just state some facts in response to the shocking falsehoods that Cla68 and others have put forward in this thread.

1. " Furthermore, at least in the past, on your advertising page for your public speaking business, you said that you would only fly first class." - absolutely false, I have never said any such thing anywhere at any time
2. The Wikimedia Foundation pays me no salary and no expenses of any kind. No plane tickets. No hotel rooms. I sometimes accept a meal at a board dinner, and once they organized and paid for a taxi for me to the airport in San Francisco - over my objections.
3. "I am Wikipedia" is something Cla68 accusing me of "milking for all its worth" - that's false. I never say anything like that, I do not believe anything like that, and indeed put forward the opposite view at every opportunity.

If Cla68 wants to be taken seriously, he needs to grow up and cut out the snarking and assumptions of bad faith.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, you get big time speaking fees (and in the past demanded first class tickets) by virtue of your relationship with Wikipedia. You started another company based off the mediawiki software developed here by volunteers. You have (or had) thousands of links from Wikipedia to your for-profit wikia. You got a bunch of your startup employees for from here.

You've made a nifty little career out of Larry Sanger's invention and the hard work of people like Cla68. Instead of spitting venom at them you should be thanking them.

Wikipedia is nothing without content - that's why it's here. People like Cla68 built this place and you are making a living off their back - show a little gratitude. --PumknPi (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is nothing without content which people can screw up to perform character assassination, which is the most fun part for certain people with agendas ;) Gravitoweak (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as reliability for accuracy, WR gets a D at best. While not absolutely useless, whatever tiny morsel of factual investigative tidbids that can be gleemed from the site are buried under a mountain of conspiracy theories.MONGO 15:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, WR is definitely more successful at identifying corruption, dichotomies, and problems in Wikipedia than in suggesting solutions. One problem with identifying exactly what is behind all the problems is the obsessive secrecy with which WP's administrators operate, such as the past use of members-only email lists. MONGO, did you ever belong to one or more of those lists? If so, could you tell me here who else were members and if Wikipedia administrative business or article content were ever discussed or coordinated? That would help discredit any silly conspiracy theories still floating around out there. Cla68 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I was on two lists...one disbanded quickly. The other existed simply to assist in trying to console and prevent online harassment...wikistalking which was spilling over into real life issues. I won't identify others that were involved...no administrative actions were coordinated such as policy changes and absolutely no article content coordination was undertaken. My efforts at the NPA policy in 2007 were related but independent based on my own personal experiences. I haven't participated in any of those mailings in almost 4 years...much is a bit foggy now. WR used to have a whole section there about MONGO...including contributions from Wiki banned editors, at least one of which created an article about MONGO at encyclopedia dramatica...all I saw in the threads there in that section at WR was a bunch of opinionated stupidities.MONGO 14:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

MOMGO, WikipediaReview is uncensored - people can speak their honest mind without getting banned, unlike Wikipedia. Here it's much worse because you have smug arrogant privileged editors baiting other editors into bannable 'incivility', applied with different standards to different editors, in order to censor critics. Furthermore, Wikipedia has all kinds of söperseceret forms, including Jimbo's own little secret star chamber where he called on the administrative staff of the world's largest reference site to go after Larry Sanger; "((jwalse)) he made up the "co-founder" bit after I fired him". MONGO, if you want to complain about truly venal on-line behavior, take a look at your own house first. --PumknPi (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hum...impressive contributions history...good work!MONGO 21:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In point of fact, I was an administrator here before you made your first edit. I just check in once in a while to see how things are going. I'm glad to see you still here MONGO, I know about all the good articles you wrote and how much you were picked on in years past. --PumknPi (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

(replying to your comment at SG's talkpage,[23] since you're one of the few people whose opinion I care about)

Cla68, thank you, but are you understanding my point as well? I like the idea of recall. I liked it the first time I heard about it (when as a new Wikipedia editor, I saw the category on an admin's page). I entered the category voluntarily, and I have stayed in it voluntarily, even though I could have easily removed myself from the category years ago. There is nothing, absolutely nothing preventing me from removing myself from the category: There would be zero consequences. But I continue to stand by the standards which I have delineated at User:Elonka/Recall, and I am well aware that if I screw up, there will probably be no problem getting "senior Wikipedians" to endorse a recall request (in fact, sadly, I can think of three off the top of my head who would probably immediately endorse such a request, regardless of whether or not there was even any merit to it). But the key issue for me is, that the spirit of the recall process is that it's supposed to be used to remove an admin who has been screwing up. It's not something that's just supposed to be used as a political tool by a harasser, to intimidate an admin who has made no abuse of tools, and no violations of policy. If, on the other hand, an admin was making a bunch of bad calls, then a recall might be appropriate. Note I'm not talking about the occasional mistake that any human can make, or one of those borderline situations where different admins might legitimately disagree about the best way to deal with a situation. Instead, I'm talking about a really major "OMG s/he's out of control" kind of situation where an admin was doing things that most uninvolved members of the community would say was inappropriate. That is what recall is supposed to be for, as a mechanism to get rid of a bad admin. But the recall that was initiated in 2008 was initiated purely for political reasons, rather than because of an admin's actual actions. --Elonka 19:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:V RfC

Hi, I might just take you up on that offer. Could you have a read through it (if you haven't already) and then drop me an email with your thoughts (unless you're on Skype, in which case we can discuss it in real time, but if not, email will do). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to be busy for the next few hours, but I should be able to drop you a line later today (Japan time). Cla68 (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine—I'm an Englishman and it's nearly 2am here so I'm off to bed! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I will probably summarize the main points as I understand them from from each side. When I do that, why don't I do it on a page in my userspace instead of private communication? That way, other editors can watch the discussion and we can communicate in almost real time over Wikipedia? Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That could work, sure. Determining consensus... by consensus—novel, but I like it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Given that your offer seems to be causing some controversy (and this close has to be done as uncontroversially as possible so that the "losing" side doesn't have any reason not to accept its legitimacy), I think it would perhaps be best if you withdraw from the role. I don't doubt your offer was made in good faith, but there is a risk that the controversy surrounding your involement could overshadow the close and that wouldn't be in Wikipedia's best interests. Sorry, Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 14:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Chuck, want to run for RFA

RFA is dying because of all the harassment and bad behavior. Want to run for RFA and show up those idiots from years ago? It would be hilarious if you did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griefer ladness (talk • contribs) 03:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Cla68/Deliberation page

User:Cla68/Deliberation page, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/Deliberation page and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cla68/Deliberation page during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hans Adler 12:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: I mentioned this at WP:ANI#Wikipedia:Verifiability. Hans Adler 15:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Indications above and on Admin List is that you are not one? Were you not aware that the closer needs to be an Admin. or maybe I'm mistaken that such was expected? Leaky Caldron 15:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think you should be congratulated for offering to help, and the page you have started appears to be quite useful. However, given the circumstances and the drama that's building up, it might be better if you withdrew your offer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm leaving my page up with my summary and reasoning. The closing admins are invited to use it if they want to. If my involvement helps get the RfC closed sooner, then I'm happy to have been of service. Cla68 (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Cla, it's an appropriate page that may be useful to the deciders. Dreadstar ☥ 01:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I (NAC) closed it, I think my reasoning is sound so hopefully it sticks. I think the drama of the MFD far outweighs any (real or perceived) harm to the encyclopedia. Cheers. Crazynas ^t 05:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I hereby award Cla68 this Barnstar of Diplomacy for his awesome and brave effort to resolve the WP:V Truth/Verifiability dispute! Dreadstar ☥ 01:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Question at Wikipedia_talk:Tool_apprenticeship

Hi Cla68, I just left a question for you at Wikipedia_talk:Tool_apprenticeship#Arbitrary_break_for_convenience_of_editing, could you take a look? Thanks! Dcoetzee 03:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I answered. The fact that you asked me a follow up question is a good sign that you all are trying to do this right. Cla68 (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

TimidGuy ban appeal arbitration case

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on

Note to self to keep an eye on this discussion. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

COI allegations

I believe that the topic has a serious problem with WP:ACTIVISTs. Perhaps you don't think that's a problem on Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

All of my edits are visible in my contribution list.   Will Beback  talk  01:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Akagi FAC

I'm pretty well finished tweaking Akagi myself, at least until I get the new edition of Hata in a couple of weeks, but I'm wondering if you want to keep on polishing it. You've added some new info, but also a lot of second, third and fourth cites to info that was already cited. I don't see a whole lot of value of doing this as it seems redundant to me, but you probably feel differently. Anyways, let me know if you'd prefer some more time to work on the article before we initiate the FAC. I'd really like to get confirmation of Hoyt's bit about the lost aircraft from Japanese sources as I'm not impressed with his work as a historian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I may be able to finish up tonight or tomorrow reviewing other sources. Hoyt, I believe, does cite his source for the information on the loss of the carrier's airgroup in the Sea of Japan, but I will check it again tonight. If you want to remove it, I'm fine with that. Cla68 (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I will check Agawa's bio of Yamamoto also to see if he confirms the story and/or has any additional details. Cla68 (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm done. Cla68 (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually use anything from the new edition of Hata? If so then please specify which ones, using all three authors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to answer Nikkimaria's question about footnote 37.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I'll try to answer today. Cla68 (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC delegate resignation

FYI. [24] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Arawe ACR

Hi, have you finished commenting in the Battle of Arawe A class review? The review has been listed for closure, and I've suggested keeping it open until you're done. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Great job. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks a lot for your excellent comments on the article and contributions to it. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Berg

Chuck, any attempt at sending cards to the foundation will be useless. You know that Kylu, supposedly a female, was confirmed to be a genuine person by Bastique, but then it turned out it was a dude? What kind of credentials do they accept if they can be fooled like that (or likely, they just accept selected individuals, honest or dishonest that they are, as long as they fit their goals)? Tempaccount6 (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The real point of my question is that Scotty's remonstrations appear to be disingenuous. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least give Berg recognition for losing 120 pounds, even if it was with surgical procedures and not good natural methods (such as detaching his butt from the chair and walking)! Tempaccount6 (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The person in question has some sympathy from me on that point. Two years ago I actually gained weight while training for a marathon! I wish weight was easier to lose, but so far I haven't, knock on wood, had to resort to surgery. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is ScottyBerg's editing akin to what Mantanmoreland would add/subtract to the Gary Weiss article? I haven't investigated whether they are or aren't.--MONGO 00:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, his edits to the article since 4 January are similar to the kind of edits that Mantanmoreland used to make. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So, you find them to be generally protective and possibly promotional?--MONGO 01:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember how the last Mantanmoreland sock farm was exposed? Cla68 (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't recollect exactly...but I do know that WordBomb's "farm" was full of hogs...and it appears he or at least his surrogates are still active on this matter...on and off wiki.MONGO 12:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP's administration still owes him an apology for how he was treated when he first tried to alert them to Mantanmoreland's dishonesty. It's still not too late. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011

		The Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October–December 2011, I am delighted to award you the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Buggie111 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

South American dreadnought race

Hey Cla. A lot of newspapers accused the Japanese of plotting to buy the Minas Geraes class, so I was wondering what the Japanese media had to say about it all... but obviously I can't read Japanese, so I decided to contact you. Would you be able to look at some online archives (if there are any) and let me know if there is anything? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't read Japanese very well either, but I will see what I can find. Cla68 (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Battle of Rennell Island

This is a note to let the main editors of Battle of Rennell Island know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 29, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 29, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Battle of Rennell Island took place on 29–30 January 1943, and was the last major naval engagement between the United States Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy during the Guadalcanal campaign of World War II. The battle took place in the South Pacific between Rennell Island and Guadalcanal in the southern Solomon Islands. In the battle, Japanese naval land-based torpedo bombers, seeking to provide protection for the impending evacuation of Japanese forces from Guadalcanal, made several attacks over two days on United States' warships operating as a task force south of Guadalcanal. In addition to approaching Guadalcanal with the objective of engaging any Japanese ships that might come into range, the U.S. task force was protecting an Allied transport ship convoy that was carrying replacement troops to Guadalcanal. As a result of the Japanese air attacks on the task force, one U.S. heavy cruiser was sunk, a destroyer was heavily damaged, and the rest of the U.S. task force was forced to retreat from the southern Solomons area. Partly because of their success in turning back the U.S. task force in this battle, the Japanese were successful in evacuating their remaining troops from Guadalcanal by 7 February 1943, leaving Guadalcanal in the hands of the Allies and ending the battle for the island. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Fortifications

Hi. I was wondering if I could get your opinion on something. I'm trying to flesh out the Lahaina Fort section on Lahaina Banyan Court Park. Based on your informed opinion about fortifications, what information should be covered by this section? I ask because I have a lot of it, but I don't know what is important to add and what is unimportant enough to leave out. As someone interested in military history, exactly what data points should it contain as a general overview? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply. There is a group of editors in WP:MIL who specialize in articles on fortifications and castles, so I'll ask them to help you out. I don't have any experience in that topic. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much! I can use all the help I can get. Like I said, I have the data, I just don't know what's important to include. :) Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late action on this, I just asked for assistance at MILHIST. Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

ScottyBerg RfC

You have been mentioned on this RfC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy's response

Has the co-founder answered the questions regarding copyrights we posed some days ago? I can't find anything right now. Gravitoweak (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, he didn't answer. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, i re-posted what you and Youreallycan wanted to ask, which is: Jimmy, your comment to CNN about the the wikipedia community being the voters seems at odds with that declared by the foundation (and followed) - did you know the foundation's position as to who was allowed to , encouraged to join in the vote? : Is that correct? Gravitoweak (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Three questions for Will Beback

Will Beback has so far failed to answer these three questions over at AN:

• Are you an administrator?
• Did you conduct an off-wiki investigation into the editing history of Rlevse's wife?
• Did you threaten Rlevse that if he did not leave the project, you would reveal the details about his wife that you found in your investigation? Cla68 (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		offered with admiration. — Ched :  ?  11:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ

I'm not going to come here throwing block threats around, but if you feel that the hat was wrong, the appropriate thing to do is to discuss it with me on my talk page or seek a consensus at ANI to reverse my decision. Please do not "summarize" that section again.--v/r - TP 23:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I told you to stay off my talk page before and I mean it. Now kindly bugger off and stop being a pain in the posterior. Prioryman (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Prioryman, but dispute resolution procedures required it. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right - pull the other one, it's got bells on it. Prioryman (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Final warning Do not continue to post personal attacks in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ, or you may be blocked from editing. I had hoped it wouldn't have to come to this, but if you can't see how your edits are inappropriate, then a block may be neccessary to prevent you from disrupting that RFC.--v/r - TP 00:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cla, I'm going to say this as someone who knows that you've said some nice things about me on WR, which I appreciate. My advice, that of course you didn't ask for, is to drop this. It's only going to blow up, and do no good. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a method to my madness, which I will put on TParis' talk page. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've mentioned your re-insertion at ani. Sorry your alleged attacks are NOT NPA/CIVIL violations, but your allegations are.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Several editors claimed, or implied, that Delicious Carbuncle, is a homophobe. In other words, they commented on the editor (the individual), not the edits (the individual's behavior). I alleged that this violated NPA, because it does. I commented on those editors' behavior, not them as people, and I supported my assertion with diffs. Therefore, I did not violate NPA. Cla68 (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If you had kept your focus to one or two editors, you might have had a case. Unfortunately, most of the edits for most of the users you cited are in no way shape or form personal attacks. Hell, one person you cited discounted the notion of it being gay related, but stil considers it to be harrassment. So since htat person deems it harrassment, they are listed as making an attack? Or cyber pooftery? You've lowered the bar for what is considered to be Civil/NPA violaitons to such a low level that it becomes an impediment to discussion. By including those you loose credibility in this claim.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We disagree that ad hominem arguments are personal attacks. That is fine. You can disagree with me, but don't edit war to prevent me from stating my opinion where everyone can see it. I addressed the behavior, not the person, as the NPA policy dictates, and I backed-up my opinion with diffs. So, I violated no policy. You can post your own, dissenting response if you want to, but you, or TParis, have no policy-backed rationale for deleting my comments or blocking me. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked; February 2012

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - TP 14:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm also writing a block review on WP:AN that will address this issue as I asked you to do several times. I will give you the link here and copy over any of your comments if you have any.--v/r - TP 14:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey what happened? Gravitoweak (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cla68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I violated no WP policies: # The section in question I added to the talk page of the RfC was not a personal attack. I addressed the behavior of the accounts, not the people (address the edits, not the person) and supported with diffs, exactly as you are supposed to do. I was in the process of notifying the editors in question (I had notified Russavia and Prioryman) when the block occurred. # Using the talk page of an RfC for dispute resolution is fine, in fact, encouraged as part of the dispute resolution process. # There is no policy against adding a summary above or below a "hatted" discussion. Especially, since the hatted discussion itself violated no policies. # I did not violate WP:POINT because I disrupted no editing process within Wikipedia. I simply gave my opinion, with supporting diffs, on an RfC talk page. # I did not edit war over the "hatting", even though TParis had no policy-based justification for hatting that discussion. I did not edit war over my summary of the discussion, because I was restoring my own edits to the talk page, which had been illegally removed since they were not in violation of any policy. TParis, however, did edit war. # My summary of what the hatted section contained was more neutral than TParis' pejorative summary. So, what actually took place was that TParis edit-warred with me over talk page content, then used his admin privileges to win the argument. Cla68 (talk) 5:36 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Your block appears to have expired. If you have problems editing, please feel free to repost (please include the message you see when you try to edit). TNXMan 14:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'd be happy to copy the comments over, I didn't realize the unblock request was one of the comments you wanted copied. I sort of expected a "Hey, copy this to AN:". I'll copy it now although I think the block is going to expire in a minute or two anyway.--v/r - TP 14:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it just expired so I guess I'll just wait for you to respond to the AN thread.--v/r - TP 14:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block review. Thank you. v/r - TP 14:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Feb 2012

Cla, the witchhunt you're participating in seems to be causing severe and possibly long term damage to the real life career prospects of one of most productive volunteers. As you seem to lack the ability to reliably use the correct gender when referring to others or even to write a coherent sentence, maybe you could step away from the RfC and restrict yourself to activities more in line with your competence? I have a similar view about the other WR accounts. At any rate, please don't post about this matter on my talk again. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, please refrain from resorting to ad hominem arguments if you disagree with something that someone says in Wikipedia. Agreed? Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I request a hold?

Hello. Can I ask that you (just for a little while) put a hold on the whole "Fae/personal attack" series of edits? If for no other reason than that it does not appear to be an effective way of getting the message through? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm finished with that part of it for now. It is part of a larger effort I've started to try to tamp down on the use of ad hominem attacks by Wikipedians on each other, along with other logical fallacies. If you have this page on your watchlist, you will see what takes place as it progresses and I welcome your participation. Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pedantic logical point

Note that ad hominem and personal attack are logically distinct, because you can have a personal attack which is not an ad hominem, and you can have an ad hominem which is not a personal attack.

For an example of the first, suppose you say that your argument is not feeble, therefore you are not an idiot. I reply that you are an idiot, therefore your argument is feeble. This is not an ad hominem, because I have addressed your argument, by modus tollens. But it is clearly a personal attack on you. Conversely, if I reply 'you are a great guy, therefore what you say is correct', that is an ad hominem because it addresses your personal qualities rather than your argument itself. But it is a compliment, not an attack.

Arguments that someone is from Wikipedia Review therefore their arguments are unsound or invalid are clearly ad hominem. Even to say an argument is biased is ad hominem. Ad hominem is any form of words that fails to engage with the content of what the speaker is saying, and engages with personal qualities or motives or reasons or whatever. Hope that helps. 86.183.162.176 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right. An ad hominem argument is not always a personal attack. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'd go even further and say that the permissibility of an ad hominem should be determined by the contribution to the discourse, by whether it raises or lowers the level of intellectual honesty. Pointing out e.g. a clearcut conflict of interest which the editor in question decided to keep out of the debate and which cannot reasonably be assumed to be common knowledge does technically constitute an ad hominem. But imho it is not only permissible, but mandatory for anyone to try and give everyone involved and particularly less-intimately-knowledgeable onlookers a chance to gauge the arguments by their actual merits. Which brings me to my current major pet peeve in WP policy: There's a widely-quoted policy called "Assume good faith", but there is no policy "Act in good faith". And the meaning of this status quo is that some of our policies are geared towards protecting some of the worst, longest-term and most well-established miscreants among WP editors. Cla, I admire your attempts at improving Wikipedia, but this crowd does not want change. They love their fallacies, they love this dysfunction, and that's why any intelligent person should give up on Wikipedia sooner rather than later. --87.79.225.165 (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the IP; ad hominem comments are not always illogical or a fallacy. The most obvious example is pointing out a conflict of interest, which the IP editor already outlined. If someone publishes an article claiming that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer, then it is entirely reasonable to point out that person's employment by a tobacco company. Far from being a logical fallacy, providing such information is considered essential in any ethical scholarly enterprise, even though it could be considered a form of ad hominem.

  A second situation in which ad hominem arguments are reasonable is in pointing out apparent hypocrisy. If you make a vigorous moral argument against behavior X, but in fact you routinely engage in behavior X, then it is reasonable to point out that your personal behavior calls into question the sincerity of your moral argument. Technically, that's an ad hominem approach, but it's neither illogical nor a fallacy. MastCell ^Talk 23:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Pointing out COI or hypocrisy aren't personal attacks if supported by evidence, but they are still usually ad hominem logical fallacies, because they don't directly address the content of the issue at hand. They address the credibility of the speaker, but not the veracity of the speaker's argument, because only an analysis of the actual content of the speaker's message can identify it's truthfulness. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The point is that an awareness of conflicts of interest, and of potential hypocrisy, is essential to any informed analysis of a speaker's message. That's presumably why reputable scholarly publishers inform readers of such conflicts. MastCell ^Talk 00:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I admit it can be helpful. I recently read a report on the Fukushima nuclear disaster written by several Japanese academics. I noticed that it was edited by a US government scientist who I happen to know is heavily involved in environmental activism (if I said his name you would recognize it). It didn't necessarily discredit the paper, but it told me that I needed to more carefully examine the paper's argument and conclusions before deciding to believe it. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Of interest

I've mentioned your name here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing at the Transcendental Meditation movement articles

"Good grief. Is this what it's like to edit the TM topic? Are you guys constantly being accused of editing from work, COI, socking, and the like? If so, it's unbelievable that it has been allowed for you all to be treated this way for so long."--Cla68

The atmosphere for editing at the Transcendental Meditation articles (Template:Transcendental Meditation movement) has been most uncongenial for several years. Outside editors and admins have quickly felt overcome by the fumes and escaped as soon as they could. I was tolerated for awhile on the Talk page, but my edits rarely survived, and I finally left to escape the attacking.

Will BeBack has been the longest-term anti-TM editor, and with a notable exception or two is usually fair and polite, with no apparent POV agenda. I said at the start of the 2010 arbitration that I thought a good solution would be to ban all the current editors (including me for completeness) and allow only neutral editors to continue the work. That was considered obviously unworthy of consideration. I know an enormous amount about the subject matter, and am able to be neutral, but under the current owners of the article, who require scrupulous adherence to all WP policy, my expert input is not wanted or used.

The Talk pages of this set of articles are filled with petty arguments applying all the various policies in various combinations, and even some WP:Wikilawyering as well. The few changes that are approved for the articles give them lopsided information, even though all the policies are followed. When you read an article, every few words or sentences you are pulled first toward TM as a wonderful discovery for mankind, and then away from TM as being pseudoscientific claptrap. If two such extreme points of view must be presented, I would have preferred that they be separated, so readers can read each POV without interruption. David Spector (user/talk) 17:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. One way to fix an article that is in that situation, from what I've observed, is to completely rewrite the article on a page in your userspace (like I am currently doing here, although there aren't any content dispute problems with that article as far as I'm aware). Once you have it rewritten, link to it on the talk page of the actual article and ask for comments/critiques. Once you have a version that most people agree on, move it over and paste on top of the current article. Cla68 (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but that would be an enormous amount of work (it's not just one article!). I wish I had that time and patience and even the slightest expectation that it would be accepted by the editors who WP:OWN these articles. Let me be clear: you are recommending that I spend many days of time I do not have to create fair, balanced articles that do justice to all the topics. Then, you are recommending that I offer these articles to these completely polarized editors who amuse themselves by finding ways to insult each other without being even slightly un-WP:CIVIL, expecting that they will welcome my magnum opus with open arms and lovingly replace the current articles with mine. Were you, perhaps, attempting a bit of humor? (Your actual suggestion was far more fantastical: you suggested I be WP:BOLD and simply overwrite the articles with mine, inviting the fastest mass reversions ever seen on WP.) Instead of asking me to do the impossible, you and your fellow admins should work to improve the problem areas in WP. You say you don't know how to do that? Here is an idea: create a new procedure wherein all the editors sitting on an article (or, in this case, a whole group of articles) are blocked or banned (sorry, I don't know the technical difference) from editing those articles, with an unlimited expiration. Have some neutral editors lined up to take over. The new editors would read, research, and rewrite the articles, as needed, to bring them up to a good level of quality. Then the team of new editors would vanish into the night, leaving the articles in good shape, ready for additions as history unfolds. Such a new procedure would have stood a chance of being accepted earlier in WP's history, but now there is too much fondness for what exists, and too little imagination left for such a revolutionary concept. Wait, it's not actually revolutionary, since all I am talking about is enforcing WP:OWN. David Spector (user/talk) 20:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it is time consuming. It is, however, a workable way to fix an article. I have seen it done before in a way that was effective enough that the warring factions were forced to reluctantly agree that the proposed article was better-written, more neutral, and flowed better than the current faction-ridden article. Anyway, I'm not an admin. I think your idea, however, is workable, but the Wikimedia Foundation would block an attempt to do as you suggest, because they put higher priority on maximum participation than on building accurate, well-written, balanced articles. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

the Wikimedia Foundation ... put[s] higher priority on maximum participation than on building accurate, well-written, balanced articles. Ya got that right! Cla, I haven't fully followed that arbcase, but as a MEDRS person, I'm most uneasy about the proposed decisions. Admins don't understand WP:MEDRS, many editors don't respect it, who will watch that? I wonder if the arbs would even get it if not for a medicine editor (Cas) on the committee? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, what I meant about problems with articles was from partisan editors, not from expert or non-expert editors. Based on my experiences, some topic areas have editors who are experts in that topic, but who are also really, really politically biased. I agree with you that the medical articles need people who know what they are doing, but I would say even more important is that those people aren't trying to push a specific agenda, no matter how knowleadgeable they are on the subject. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

But my specific question relates to the problem that very few admins on Wikipedia understand or even know of the existence of WP:MEDRS, much less how to determine if a source meets that guideline, so if an editor who previously violated that is being unbanned, but expected to comply with MEDRS, who will be watching that? It's a problem everywhere I edit medically: advocates use primary and lay media sources to push POV, and most admins and outside editors don't even realize the guideline breach, or that the way to solve the content disputes is to enforce adherence to MEDRS. The autism suite of articles was an enormous POV walled garden in 2006, and it got cleaned up when a group dove in and forced MEDRS compliance. (Kind of like what you're saying above, about getting it written right, problem disappear-- that happened there.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I understand what you mean. Yes, in that case, admins need to understand how to enforce MEDRS and how to encourage compliance among well-meaning, but inexperienced editors. Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just wondering how they will enforce it. I raised my question over on the arb board discussion, where I noticed some unbecoming grave dancing. Regardless of how one felt about those users, they are still real people, and I'm well aware that the kiddie admins are aiming for me, and plenty of them would like to dance on my grave next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If there are any pages that I could help out on by putting on my watchlist, please let me know which ones. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist notice

I saw your suggestion on the RfC's talk page. I've already made a request for that [25]. You may wish to support it, because that too is decided by consensus. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cla68. You have new messages at Terrillja's talk page.
Message added 02:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Terrillja _talk 02:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

ARBCC topic ban lift request

[26] Note to self with link to keep this watched. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Fiji Infantry Regiment

G'day, today I came across a question that you left on Talk:Fiji Infantry Regiment in November 2006. Sorry that no one has responded until now. I've left an answer there for you, if you are still interested. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands dispute

Is there any chance you could stop adding every news story about SI to that article? Wikipedia is expressly WP:NOTNEWS. We should not be listing a month by month chronology of every minor incursion, along with the obligatory calling of ambassadors and strongly worded statements. That whole chronology needs to be about 60-80% shorter than it actually is, and adding more and more incidents isn't helping...I just don't have time right now to do the major edits needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. If I wanted to know the history of the Senkaku Islands dispute, that's the kind of detail I would be interested in. I suggest at the end of each year we remove the bullet points of each incident and summarize them in a couple of paragraphs. Cla68 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That simply is not what Wikipedia does. We don't list year by year, event by event. We provide a summary overview of a dispute. Furthermore, we're never supposed to have bulleted lists when prose is acceptable. Instead, that article should have sections like "Encounters between naval vessels" and "Diplomatic efforts". What you're talking about simply isn't an encyclopedia article. Like i said, I'm not going to be making the changes right now, but it is on my long-term "to do list"; I'll seek talk page consensus before doing anything major, of course. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Cla68/threat charges

User:Cla68/threat charges, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/threat charges (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cla68/threat charges during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good grief. Cla68 (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  Re:this. I recommend moving it to your talk page instead. They can delete your user page but policy prevents them from deleting your talk page. --Vanished User 13579 (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Done. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon

In case there is some confusion, the family spokesman had already confirmed the reason for the suspension before Drmies took any action in this case. Drmies never claimed that the information was false or dubious, just that it shouldn't be included. Dragons flight (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. Cla68 (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• You said, at AN, "I don't think there would be an edit war, because currently et cetera." Now that is something I might agree with. I am not sure the many detractors (including you, I guess) understand that that was one of the things I was hoping for--that a consensus be established among a broader group of editors than just the three or four who were discussing the matter on the talk page. I don't know if you're still calling for my head or not, but you have to admit that there's some hysteria going on at AN. Oh, as I've said before, I am perfectly willing to be overruled by an admin, and the argument you brought up (half of which is cited above) is precisely the kind of thing that would be relevant. All this screaming from some editors about censorship and violations of sacred obligations will go nowhere, and I am sure you know that. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It has been my experience with articles about highly publicized media-intensive events, that things for the most part take care of themselves, because so many people are watching and participating with building the article, and the mass media is quick to confirm or publicize new details. I don't think I called for your head, just called for you to unlock the article since you locked it. I understand that its a fine line between enforcing BLP and getting in the way of trying to build a complete, up-to-date article. Cla68 (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I had passport photos taken today. My head actually looks a lot less attractive than I though it did. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Must be the haircut:) Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

selfreverted

seems you are right, the capital letters and the spelling 'ver-MOOTH' led me think its improper. i have self reverted , thanks for informing-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My doorstep

Do not darken my doorstep again. If you continue to follow me around the encyclopedia, I will seek a binding interaction ban between us. Hipocrite (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And I will participate in any arbcom case which is opened whereby the evidence is about your HOUNDing issues, for I too an greatly fatigued of your multi-year effort to "get me". We already saw your saga against SlimVirgin and later WMC...--MONGO 23:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hipocrite, if you look higher up on that BLPN page, you will see I had participated in a previous discussion on the same issue, BEFORE you did. So, actually, you followed me to that topic. MONGO, same thing. You know that I was in the Pentagon during the 9/11 attacks, so I have more than a passing interest in the topic. That's the only topic, as far as I know, where our paths of crossed in the last few years. You, however, have followed me around. A certain recent MfD vote ring any bells? For you two to follow me around and then accuse me of following YOU takes a lot of gall. While we're here, Hipocrite, stop threatening other editors and calling them racists. MONGO, why don't you and the other 9/11 editors stop the campaign against The Devil's Advocate? I will post this on both your talk pages to make sure you get it. Cla68 (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Cla68. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

fyi

You've been mentioned here. Nobody Ent 02:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. When you recently edited Senkaku Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Defense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Advertising paid editing on your user page

Hi Cla68. I see that you are selling your editing services on your user page. I think that WP:NOTADVERTISING prohibits that sort of thing. Would you be willing to take that down? Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 05:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't violate WP:NOTADVERTISING. I am offering to improve the encyclopedia in exchange for compensation. There is no policy in Wikipedia that forbids that. Cla68 (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you consider using the reward board instead? I note with some interest that in the 2009 paid editing RFC you indicated that you would take half as much money for an FA. If WP:NOTADVERTISING doesn't apply, I think WP:UP#PROMO probably does. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 06:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It seems to fall within the limitations of WP:UP#PROMO to me, as it is related to Wikipedia, and it's not excessive. So long as Cla68 notifies this page and the talk pages of any articles that xe is paid to edit (though I wonder if the statement is actually serious) of xyr COI and abides by WP:COI, then this seems fair. I don't know how a business would ever stumble across this ad, so I doubt its effectiveness, but should you have any success, I recommend availing yourself of the services found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help; in particular, User:WWB Too provides an excellent model for appropriate COI editing behavior (and is, in fact, probably more cautious than strictly required). Of course, were Cla68 to add in animated gifs and flashing advertisements to call attention to this add, then WP:UP#PROMO might become relevant. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(also (talk page stalker)) While I personally don't approve of paid editing, Cla's right in that there's no rule against it as long as it's done in good faith (eg, editing rather than spaming). It seems sensible for editors offering paid editing services to display this on their user page as part of being transparent. Cla, if you get any takers, how would this work? I presume that you would make it clear which articles you'd been paid to edit - especially during assessment processes. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(also also (talk page stalker)) A very bold move. I've been operating under the impression that paid editors should not add content anywhere in Wikipedia that could be seen as a Call to action for others to hire them. Perhaps I am wrong? Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   10:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. Carry on I say, but just be careful. This seems to be an unusual thing, but so long as you stay neutral I really don't see what the fuss is about. It's just that paid editors have a tendency to be biased, so I would recommend that you be extremely careful here. But feel to edit I say! Good luck! Jesse V. (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Cla68 advertising his services as a paid Wikipedia editor. Thank you. Monty₈₄₅ 17:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Cla68, there seems to be general (but not unanimous) agreement at ANI that, while there is no policy forbidding you from being paid for editing, actively advertising your services on your userpage is inappropriate. Would you be willing to be cooperative and either remove the advertisement from your userpage, or at least refactor it such that it is no longer an advertisement but more of a disclosure that you are a paid editor? It's unlikely that you're getting much business from people randomly dropping in on your userpage, and it would be easier for everyone if you were cooperative rather than having people go to the trouble of starting RFC's about it. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 20:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• That's strange; the discussion has been going for all of three hours, too soon to judge consensus, but regardless of the short duration, I don't see that agreement at ANI at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• No, I don't see that consensus either. --John (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but Jimbo seems to agree. See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Am I out of line on this? It makes me sick to my stomach, and I think it's violative of our ToS as well ‑Scottywong| comment _ 21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo and Cla have been bitching and trolling at each other for ages. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

While some may wikilawyer that the guideline WP:UP#PROMO does not apply because of the connection to Wikipedia, the policy WP:SOAP is very clear "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." Please remove the advertisement now. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Red pen, this is not the place for this discussion, especially since the current discussion at ANI does not support your position. At best, there is no consensus on the statement. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Show me one person who is saying the POLICY WP:NOT is not being flagrantly violated? Yes there are lots of people who are saying the wording of the GUIDELINE WP:UP#PROMO might allow it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Nick, I imagine that someday soon it will make more sense for FA nominators who weren't paid to declare such when making a nomination, because I believe that most editors who take the time to take an article to FA-level quality will be paid to do so. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • @Cla68: I'll give you a barnstar if you help me get List of self-publishing companies to WP:GA status. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOAP speaks of article space, external links, articles about companies. Here we have a simple announcement on a user page, without more.

We also have a lot of soapboxing, but not from Cla68. Kablammo (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that you skipped down too far. It starts out quite clearly: [[WP:SOAP|"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages."]] -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Red Pen is right, WP:SOAP is policy, CLA68's ad fails this policy and needs to be removed per that same policy.

@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 16:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeing no consensus at the now closed discussion that this user page should be exempt from Policy, I have removed the inappropriate content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Join the CLub

		The Jimbo Finds Me Offensive Barnstar of Infamy
		You have disagreed with Jimbo, and Jimbo ain't happy. What's even worse is that you haven't apologized to Jimbo, this makes Jimbo mad. Never stare a mad Jimbo in the eyes as it usually results in a desysopping. The Jimbo can now only be placated with a WikiLove template on his talkpage, accompanied by decorous praise.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, my main criticism is that you list your price... that's just bad business practice.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Worse, you've pitched it so low you'll ruin it for the rest of us. For example my standard charge is $250 per article edit, and in a special deal with the Association of Manufacturers of Industrial Acids I get $450 for each caustic comment I post about meretricious complaints on the noticeboards. How are editors like me going to make an honest living from Wikipedia now? You've started a price war that will surely lead to school kids advertising FAs for a couple of ecstasy tabs a pop. Shame on you. Writegeist (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I was hoping to charge more than that. Maybe I can make my name brand well-known through flash ads?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Orangemike

My statement was intended to stir things up a little by forcing a discussion on the issue of paid editing. The correct thing that Orange Mike and the others who think like him should have done was to ignore me. Of course, they apparently don't have sufficient situational awareness to realize that. By bringing it up in administrative forums and Jimbo's talk page, they have now likely cemented it in place as an acceptable practice. The thing is, if someone really is willing to pay me that much for a FA-level article, I am willing to accept and do it.

Hmmm. I thought that Orangemike should have contacted you on your talk page first, before taking it to ANI. Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I see now that he filed after Gobonobo contacted you. Still, it would be nice if the filing editor attempts to resolve the issue as well, although this isn't always possible. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that OrangeMike took it to ANI, because we now have it established after discussion in an administrative forum that openly editing for pay is allowed by Wikipedia's policies and culture. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Need your advice... taking your idea and gonna make millions!

Hey Cla, I need your advice... now there are some people who have the talent/skill/and writing ability that they can help an article progress to FA status. At the same time, there are other editors whose mastery of the English language dictates that the encyclopedia would be better off NOT editing. To that extent, I would cast myself in the later categroy... so I was thinking, for a mere five dollars per article, I will agree NEVER To edit said article... I figure that all I have to do is get people to pay me not to edit 1% of the articles out there and I'll be able to retire!---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to apply to the federal government. Only they pay people not to do stuff![27]--regentspark (comment) 16:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

ROFL. I just bought John Stossel's book "No They Can't". I think you know where my position is, I don't need to say anymore. Jesse V. (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I will look into buying that book for my Kindle. Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for amendment Climate Control

Your request for amendment has been declined. No motion or conclusive support for the lifting of the topic ban was achieved. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Protected

Hey Cla, I protected your userpage because of the edit warring. If you'd like to make an edit to it, let me know and I can unprotect it or make the change for you, whatever you'd prefer. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion at the administrators notice boards

A discussion has been initiated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Advertisement_on_user_page about whether or not the community will come to a consensus to allow an advertisement on your user page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not the advertisement is real, but if it is, I think all this fuss is doing a better job of advertizing Cla68's services than a post on a user page ever could :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The post on Jimbo's talk page was especially helpful in getting the word out. Jimbo's talk page is likely the most watched user talk page in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You've made your point and started up several new discussions. Would you be willing to remove the advertisement until those discussions are finished? --Onorem♠Dil 17:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I just noticed this whole thing and I find the hyperventilation hilarious. I was wikignoming for a long time, not paying attention to Wikipedia space - and I just found out I missed the de-sysopping and banning of the insufferable Wont Beback. Many thanks for your work on that case, and bravo on your current endeavors. Kelly ^hi! 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Queries

Cla, 'tis an impressive list of FAs on your user page.

You may have noticed that I came out in favour of allowing paid editing at the debate. However, that was a purely pragmatic view; paid editing involves a nest of moral and logistic issues that the project doesn't seem willing or able to manage—at least not yet.

I noticed during a quick glance, "You can't have too many footnotes, but you can have too little." First, having seen a lot of FA candidates in which reftags litter the text, some of them clearly redundant and defensive, I quaver at your encouragement. Editors need to be a bit discriminating to avoid, for example, the same reftag number after three or four consecutive sentences—that's irritating to readers. You don't see reftag bloat in academic articles.

You might consider correcting the grammar: "You can't have too many footnotes, but you can have too little few."

Does your fee depend on whether the nomination succeeds? Will you declare at the nom page that you've been paid to do it? Do you have a personal code of ethics for your clients to read and understand? [PS as an afterthought, I guess I'm partly asking these questions as possible Signpost coverage, so you may wish to respond by email.]s

Cheers, Tony (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I LOL'd at the grammar correction. That's one of the nuiances of the language that I'd never pick up on. But I agree, the flat rate isn't a good method... is the rate the same for a scientific articles as for something you are familiar with? What about something where finding sources might be hard/nigh impossible.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 13:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for the critique and grammar correction. I will fix that. Since I don't have any control over the FA process, and that is how it should be, I will probably need to change the wording of my offer to "FA-level quality". I can and will promise to make the articles I work on as complete as possible based on the sourcing available and that I will submit them for FA consideration. I haven't decided yet if I will declare for each article if I am being compensated or not, I may leave that up to the client. I probably should write a personal code of ethics, that's a good idea. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Cla68

User:Cla68, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cla68 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I really expected better than this of you. Cla68 - ya made your point, kin we stop with the zOMG dramaz now? I get it. Everyone gets it. Yea .. people get paid to edit here. It's not a big shock to anyone with half a brain. But then again, hey - if ya get that $1000 .. well then - good on you. — Ched :  ?  20:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Goodness. I'm not going near there, but will someone tell Wehwalt he can't vote twice? On the same day, noless! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually glad it was done. We have a policy already in place that bans advertisments, and yet, certain sysops seem to want to ignore it and insist on consensus where one already exists, instead of action. Good work , BWilkins @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 20:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, no logical fallacies please. You lose any chance at a higher moral ground when you resort to such tactics. By the way, my userpage is not currently against any policy in Wikipedia. If you don't like it, you need to try to change the policies, not try to nominate my userpage for deletion. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

@Cla68He doesn't have to WP:SOAP already is policy. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 23:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read SOAP very carefully. I did. It does not prohibit announcing your services or availability to improve Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Consequences: undisclosed COI editing, arbcom acceptance of COI editing, lax notability standards

Nice back story at Douglas E. Lynch (see talk also). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)