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

Looking for sources

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

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

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

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

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

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)