User talk:Commodore Sloat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  1. June 2004 – May 2006
  2. May 2006 – December 2006
  3. December 2006 – December 2007
  4. December 2007 – May 2009


Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

For your perserverence[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your persistence in holding your group at Juan Cole and elsewhere, Wikipedia owes you thanks. The Squicks (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Here's an answer to that question we've been wondering about. Skywriter (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Spitting Image[edit]

I've been watching your editing discussion (via edit summaries) with McGuiness. You may have to carry on the discussion by yourself for a while, until he reappears: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TDC. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh; why am I not surprised. If I recall correctly, TDC was edit warring on that very page (among many many others) 2 or 3 years ago. I had hoped he'd moved on by now. csloat (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


If the personal attacks don't stop I suggest you take the editor to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or AN/I. I'll comment there as well if that is what has to happen. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Commodore Sloat. You have new messages at KillerChihuahua's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Communist genocide" cat[edit]

Agree with your "wtf?" about the category "Category:Communist genocide", but as long as it exists (someone created it as a sub-category minutes ago) it'll have to stay there in compliance with wiki's child-category conventions. I strongly urge you to nominate the category for deletion. If you do so, let me know, I'll support it :) Seb az86556 (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you nominate it then? I am not sure how to nominate categories as opposed to articles. It seems clear it was just created in order to score points in the ongoing debate on that talk page. csloat (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Im not sure how to do that either... I'll ask User:Simonm223, maybe that'll get it moving... Seb az86556 (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It has been done. csloat (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Good. gave my vote. Seb az86556 (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Weekly Stan[edit]

What are you talking about? Where is your ref? I can't see it. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the sentence is a footnote and you click it and it takes you to this article by the magazine's editor explaining "the neoconservative persuasion." If that's not enough for you I added another footnote with a direct quote from Max Boot to the footnotes. For heaven's sake, everybody calls the Weekly Standard neoconservative, the magazine is practically a synonym for the term. I don't understand why people insist on removing statements of the obvious from the lede in articles, or piling on footnotes in the first sentence of an article to demonstrate a claim that is assumed by every single source cited in the article. csloat (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I responded on the talk page about this article. As I said there; that is what confused me, it (the article) is not by the editor and founder (Bill Kristol) but by the founder's father (Irving Kristol), a scholar and writer in his own right. His statements are not policy or guidelines for the magazine. That said, you have made a cogent argument on the broader issue and a convincing one. I have therefore added a second citation related to the characterization and structured the lede in the same fashion that other opinion magazines are handled at Wikipedia. I hope that it meets with your approval. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Help! Autoblock??[edit]

unblock|When I try to edit a page I am told I have been "autoblocked" due to a "3RR violation." I see no such discussion on my talk page, or, indeed, anywhere, and I am at a loss in going through my history to find any 3RR violation at all. There was no warning, no commentary, and indeed no 3RR violation. Can someone tell me what's going on? Thanks. csloat (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I figured out what happened; the admin tried to block another user and accidentally blocked me. It shows as unblocked on my block log, but I am still blocked :( Can someone help or do I have to wait for the block to expire? csloat (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Artículo bueno.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1552880, remnant of accidental User Block

Request handled by: Fribbler (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.



I left a message at the talk page about the merge. I do believe there is consensus, but I apologize for not explicitly showing everyone where it can be found. I also did "merge" the material. The issue is that most of the criticism entry is excessive detail (bloat) or redundant with material that was already in the main entry. If you disagree on specific pieces of information that did not make the crossover please mention them on the talk page. You can see the merge here. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the situation some more and found yet another discussion where two additional editors support a merge (with no others commenting). I went ahead and undid your revert for now. I have outlined it all on the talk page of the criticism entry and apologize once again for not making this clear before my merge. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation. Part of it is my fault; once a page is moved it's harder to find the previous talk page, so I was looking at the wrong talk page, where the discussion of merge was over a year old. csloat (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass Killings etc.[edit]


We're in the middle of a re-write - what I added will be sourced in more detail down the page, but I'm still going through sourcing. The sources are there - please look at the references added recently, and the ones mentioned today on the talkpage. The problem before was that the "genocide" issue was messing everything up (because the word was defined - on wiki and in real-life too - more or less to have a go at anything wrong communist governments ever did).

I have no idea, given that I keep listing sources that identify the three examples as a group to be studied together (with debate on the extent of the true similarities and the role of ideology in each), why there are people insisting the article is irretrievable SYTNH. I think everyone has a hangover from the last AFD. The main authors you should check are Valentino, Rummel, and Harff and Gurr, but I keep finding more works about each country individually that also use the others as a point of reference. In other words, there's no synth, just a matter of summarising the sources in a well-organised manner. And that takes time. You've been on wikipedia a long while - surely you appreciate that. I believe I am an editor of good standing, who can be trusted not to be messing around with things like POV SYNTH.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It still looks like synth to me. I explained my problem with each of the sources on the AfD page. Do the sources talk about "communist mass killings" as a concept and discuss the ideological coherence of this group in a dialogue with each other? It doesn't look like it to me. csloat (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for actually engaging in the issue. I feel that we can establish practical criteria for whether or not this article is ultimately a case of synthesis or not. I take your criticisms seriously, and I recognise the dangers in cherry-picking from sources in a way that misrepresents the academic work. I happen to believe (at the moment) that there is a case to be made for representing in wikipedia academic (and legal) debate on putative connections between communism and mass killings - and you don't believe a coherent debate exists. Fine - that's a clear disagreement based on wikipedia principles. My problem with the AfD is that it is thoroughly premature, and that there is a prima facie case for letting people work on it. Fifelfoo and Andersll have both said that if after all the work, it's still basically synth, they would vote for deletion. I would too. My position is that if we can show that the question has been treated as a legitimate question in academic debate, that the three cases in particular are compared and studied, then there is a case for keeping. I will do my best to be honest about that. The pleas for more time are not delaying tactics.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it looks like the AfD will fail anyway, so I think you will have your wish. If you think it is salvageable, please help salvage :) I have my doubts but I will see what happens. csloat (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It'll fail, but only as a stalemate. It's much better have a clear decision and community support one way or the other, which is why I'm interested in engaging with you and others. Anyway, we'll try our best over the next few weeks.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem, in my mind, with Termer's conduct in attempting to source on the article, and I've said so there. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Amwestover/Swiftboating[edit]

Hi. I moved the MFD to: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Amwestover/Swiftboating (second nomination) because the old page was archived and should not be edited further. Dr.K. praxislogos 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I kind of figured I was doing it wrong. csloat (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Any time. Take care. Dr.K. praxislogos 03:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A friendly request[edit]

Could you do me a favor and avoid using words such as contempt, as you did here. Legal terms generally carry negative connotations, as such they are best left off arbitration case pages. As I said above, just a friendly request. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "legal term." csloat (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes[edit]

I collapsed the discussion because (a) it's literally the same arguments as the AFD which was just closed; and (b) the argument had gone way beyond usefulness. If you think there should be another article, create it. If you think this should be deleted, AFD or DRV it. If you think the title should be changed, suggest that. Otherwise, this is not a way to start a serious discussion (and this is not a serious editor). The article as it is barely coherent and nobody seems to even be bothering with the actual sources used. If you want to reopen it, go ahead but if the thing goes off-topic again, we better not be back at ANI with more complaining. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the AfD will be reopened eventually if needed. The arguments have actually progressed because the issue now is not deleting the article but removing SYN and renaming if necessary. Censoring that discussion is unproductive. And if an abusive editor is reported to AN/I, the solution is to discuss it with and/or sanction the editor, not to censor the discussion on talk. I don't think I've ever seen an active discussion closed down because of an editor before. csloat (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the two links you give are certainly illustrative of your point - those are not serious edits - but you censored the entire discussion, not just the anon ip's drive-bys. There's a lot more there. Again, the big problem here is the synthesis violation, but if you believe Wikipedia policies in this regard are a "lie," I'm not sure what I can do about that. csloat (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear 9/11[edit]

I wanted to let you know that I'm not pursuing the Nuclear 9/11 thing any further. I'm spending my limited WP time on several other interesting articles that have come my way. However, feel free to cut material from the userspace version of Nuclear 9/11 to expand the nuclear terrorism article if you wish. Johnfos (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-communist mass killings[edit]

This article, which you participated in, is currently up for deletion, editors are welcome to share their opinion there. thank you. Okip (formerly Ikip) 13:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Post-structuralism to poststructuralism[edit]

Hello, do you think it would be acceptable to change the article from the former to the latter? I have left a note about it on that talk page:[1] No one responded. I have asked you and Coffeepusher for ideas. Check Google for how often the terms are used: it seems clear that "poststructuralism" has greater currency. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

On Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity Committed in Albania during the Communist Regime for Political, Ideological and Religious Motives[edit]

An editor has proposed renaming this article. His original choice was "Albanian genocide law". However I oppose any change of name because no reliable sources provide a short form for the law and there is another law on "Genocide" under the Albanian criminal code,[2] while this law has been repealed. Please comment at the article's talk page. TFD (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination)#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes exists[edit]

neutral notification Collect (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks! Missed it, but it's probably for the best... csloat (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD of article you worked on[edit]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justus Weiner (2nd nomination). Jaque Hammer (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (I did not start the discussion; the original poster failed to notify you himself.) -- (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This involves the website you have linked to on your userpage. If you don't own that website anymore, you might want to change/remove that info. (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You surely know that it isn't Commodore Sloat's website anymore, because it's yours. (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Whatever you say, SuaveArt. Looks like you denied your other accounts, too. (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I don't come around that much anymore so it seems I missed the discussion before I could contribute (though I thought I felt my ears burning the other day...). It's too bad because I could have filled in the following details which would have saved everyone aggravation: I let the website lapse a couple years ago (or longer? I don't remember) and it got snapped up by a right wing fundamentalist who apparently had been waiting for the opportunity (he had a blog at I think, and when he pounced on the domain he posted a note about how he had swiped it from an irresponsible leftist or some such). I had no idea he was a wikipedia editor too, and I don't recall having any wikipedia arguments with him (though who knows; there were a lot back in the day). I doubt he took the website to retaliate for any Wiki-related nonsense; I think he just really wanted the domain name. And as I compare the archive to what's there now, I really should have made more of an effort to hold on to it; but, oh well ;)

A question of curiosity; was it my name that was posted to the ANI discussion and then deleted, or Jinxmchue? csloat (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, Sloat, and sorry for the misunderstanding. The real name posted to the noticeboard was that of "Jinxmchue", which was obtained from the Whois results of that domain. By the way, I am not nor do I know in real life SuaveArt, and only now did I get the "not a Republican" comment (made by the Minnesota IP on the incidents' noticeboard). user:SuaveArt goes by the handle "NotARepublican" at the Wikipedia Review, but that just popped into my head at this moment. (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Source for CIA doubts/Niger uranium forgeries[edit]

I didn't pull the section right off as I'm not trying to be a deek here, but could you come up with a better source than Slate "Chatterbox" which is self described as "Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics"? (look at the top of the page, it really says that!) There's been lengthy Senate Intelligence Committee Reports on this matter, as well as other official inquiries, if it is a fact that Condi Rice received a to-the-point memorandum from George Tenet to not include ANY reference to yellowcake in white house speeches, surely there is better sourcing available than a political op-ed/hit piece on Cheney at a page which distances itself from its own material with such a description? This is not dissimilar to problems I had with NPGuy's edit. A lot of accusations were being thrown around in June/July 2003, talking heads and pundits were printing anything and everything that sounded good. That's why the official inquiries and reports were done, to get to the bottom of it and just because we can find a source for a claim doesn't mean it is fit for inclusion, particularly if official inquiries held at a later time debunk it. I'm going to see if the Senate Report specifically addresses the charge, I won't remove it until I do or if you can't find a better source within say a week or two. Batvette (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Better sources are always a good idea :) I added a couple, though I left the Slate "chatterbox" link in since it is the earliest mention I found of the memos, but there is probably more out there. csloat (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

'cool story bro', Freud[edit]

Hi. on [3] After I made an edit you made a comment about my edit which I took to be sarcastic (but really I can't be certain), then my edit was removed (reverted) by someone else (a science fiction fan whose knowledge on Psychology/Freud/Hypnosis history is unknown). What is your take on this? I was honestly trying to make the section more informative, but went a little overboard. Still, I think there is an important distinction to be made here. What do you think? Mrzold (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow... that comment was indeed sarcastic but it wasn't directed at you at all -- someone must have reorganized the messages so it looks that way. I was poking fun at the anon ip who was arguing that Freud is no longer relevant and therefore the page should be deleted. Looking over the edit history I don't see the changes that you made, but I certainly agree with what you wrote on the talk page, that more information about Freud's relationship to hypnosis would be helpful. But I don't see any edits by you on the Freud page? csloat (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I just changed the talk page so that the comments are in the proper order. Somehow my comment and the response to it got stuck in the middle of your comments about hypnosis. csloat (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, I thought that was a little weird and I suspected that your comment was in the wrong section. Looking at the history here: [4] you can see my edit. Maybe I'll make it more concise and try again. Mrzold (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is your edit, neither has your userid on it? In the link you gave I prefer the one on the left as it's more precise. Being concise isn't an issue I think; the difference is maybe 8 words? csloat (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the one on the left was mine. And you're right about what you wrote on the Freud talk page; the subject of Freud's relationship, or anyone's relationship to hypnosis was especially complicated then, but can be awfully tricky in the 20th century, too. Mrzold (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG one needs a lot of energy on wikipedia Severino (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


I see you don't edit much anymore, but I thought you'd like to know that Nayirah was reworked.Smallman12q (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving material on CSUN[edit]

Hi, Sloat!

I stumbled upon your link to an archive on Gary Webb stuff: Talk:Gary_Webb#This_Page_Violates_Wikipedia.27s_POV_Standard. I am in the process of archiving materials from the website "Cocaine Importing Agency"

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)