User talk:Commodore Sloat/Archive 2

Pleasure

it was a pleasure to make your acquaitance commodore. you keep a cool head under fire. as a practicing attorney, i know better but often fail to do so. there's a latin quote somewhere "that those are more culpable that knowing the better course, and indeed preferring it, continue to stray." Take Care!--Will314159 14:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for the great info on Cole; I am heading over to check out that video now.--csloat 04:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy See any familiar names and/or tactics? Take Care!

Re Cole

Commodore, responding to your question about Cole:

1. I think the question of whether Cole is antisemitic is probably not helpful. It's like the question of whether Steve Sailer or Charles Murray is racist - it ultimately depends on Cole's inner thoughts, which we will never know. And like the question of whether somebody is racist, it makes everybody defensive and never really helps the debate.
2. That said, like asking whether somebody is racist, we all generally come to a conclusion, which could easily be wrong, about the various things that make you go "hmmm." I wanted to own my own POV about Cole, but I certainly don't have enough info to actually make the accusation, which is a serious one.
3. In Cole's case, I respect that he distinguishes between Jews based on their individual beliefs. Still, for what it's worth, I suspect that he's disproportionately biased against Jews, because (1) opinions to the effect that Likud is morally indistinguishable from the Iraqi or Syrian Ba'ath are sufficiently contrary to what I understand as reality as to make me suspect bias, and (2) there is a strain of conspiracy theory in Cole's writing, such as his theory that Martin Kramer's criticism of him was a result of Israeli intelligence operations, AIPAC, and/or "the shadowy world of far-right Zionist think tanks and dummy organizations." (Click the link - it's hilarious). Again, I don't know whether Cole is anti-semitic or not, but his leaping to the conclusion that academic criticism is a result of Israeli intelligency or "the shadowy world of far-right Zionist think tanks and dummy organizations" is one of those things that make me go "hmmm," as I say. From what I know of academics, I would expect that angry criticism and exchanges are the norm, not the suspicious exception.

Thanks, TheronJ 20:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, you're right about academics, in my experience :) I think the claim of antisemitism is strange and while I appreciate your contextualizing it clearly in points 1&2 (and I definitely agree w/point #1), but I hope you don't mind me pressing a bit further. Cole may be right or wrong about Likud but it seems bizarre to leap from criticism of Likud to antisemitism. Cole is extremely critical of the Syrian Ba'ath party and of Salafi jihadist ideologies, yet nobody has ever suggested this as evidence of Islamophobia, or even of "things that make you go hmmmm." Again, and I write this as an American Sephardic Jew who has been trained from an early age to be very concerned about antisemitism, I don't see a claim for antisemitism simply from an author criticizing particular Jews. Unless we can show that what Cole says about Feith equally applies to, say, Chaim Perelman, the claim seems both ludicrous and incendiary. I agree with you that the conspiracy theorizing can be a little paranoid, but I would suggest that Cole's paranoia is a fear of what secret and unaccountable intelligence agencies do rather than of what Jews do. If Cole were criticizing writers with close ties to the Iraqi Mukhabarat you might see the same suspicions raise their heads. I think the claim of antisemitism in Cole's case is particularly troubling since he has been outspoken against antisemitism (see, for example, his long-standing campaign against censorship of Israeli academics) and because the only support for the claim comes in a form that your point #1 above seems to invalidate -- i.e. it's not in anything Cole actually says but rather an assumption on the part of the people making the charge that they know what is going on in Cole's head.

I am getting sick of defending Cole on that page. I don't think he is right about everything; I actually disagree with a lot of what he says, and I agree with those who are sometimes put off by the conspiratorial claims. But the charge of antisemitism seems to trivialize real antisemitism. Even today there are still far too many people in the world who express antisemitism and other forms of racism openly; using that label to dismiss the claims of people who don't express such views simply because we are suspicious of what might be going on in their heads seems dangerous and insulting to people who have suffered from the real thing.--csloat 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Commodore. Cole is too much of a polemicist. You can make the point more effectively by being a little gentler. He is often a bit too forceful. But, I went to Law School, and I have the same failing. But calling Cole anti-semitic b/c he disagrees with Israeli landgrab politics and criticized the NeoKon cabal is crazy. the NeoKons are as conspicous as the nose on anybody's face! Did they cause the Irag war? I like Uri Avnery's take on it. They wagged the Oil Lobby (Cheney) and Oil Lobby wagged them. And what have we got? And it's not academic. What's coming? Iraq2=Iran. that's why I'm involved in this Cole page. i'm doing my part to keep the record straight and fair so the readers don't get a slanted read on somebody out there giving a valuable level headed perspective. Is being for basic human rights for the Palestinians and for a Comprehensive MidEast Peace based on the Taba Accord or Geneva Peace Plan and the Beirut Arab League King Faisal proposal and anti-WAr an anti-Semite? Take Care! --Will 00:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC) EDIT suspect according to Karsh, it would be a "new anti-semite." 01:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarification that it isn't personal

Hi. I should have written this sooner because you said something a while back about me not liking you. I just want to make it absolutely clear that isn't the case. For all I know, we could be best buddies in real life despite the inevitable debates. Disagreeing with me is not a problem, my issues are with the specific problems I have with your argumentation. Obviously I've come off as nasty, I've asked you to lift your game, I need to lift mine. Sorry. --Armon 17:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, let's take a break from fighting, hold hands, and vote to whack a sloppy article on a conspiracy theory. ;) Armon 16:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

hehe... definitely something we can agree on there :)--csloat 19:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Correcting your correction

Mr. Sloat! -- I am not a regular nor am I likely to become one, so I may not be following proper protocol here in replying to your reverting my edit on the Ray McGovern article. I went to high school with McGovern and worked in the Clandestine Service for more years that he was in the Agency as an analyst. He never served as a CS officer (possible brief rotational assignments to combined Centers such as CTC after the fall of the Soviet Union notwithstanding). He cannot, and certainly does not, speak authoritatively for anything having to do with operations, his highly opinionated public commentary on operational decisions at the Agency since his retirement should therefore have no more credibility than the average layman's. Please do not edit my comment based on sloppy journalism at the Boston Globe or any other unofficial publication regarding McGovern's service within CIA. Henrymj 15:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)henrymj

Hi Henry. If you have outside knowledge that the Boston Globe was incorrect, it is considered original research unless you can back it up with a published source. I actually don't have a problem with your point that he never worked clandestinely, but the rest of what you wrote - that he can't speak authoritatively about the CIA or that he has no credibility - is an opinion that really isn't encyclopedic. If you have published this opinion anywhere, or if a journalist has printed it in an article, we can quote you here, but Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place for such quotes to appear for the first time in print. --csloat 19:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Sloat, Since I have direct knowledge of McGovern's never having been a CS officer (he entered the Agency in 1963 to the DI; I entered in 1965 to the DO and spent a career there that went past McGovern's by at least 4 years, and I also know him personally as we attended Fordham Prep at the same time (he was a class behind), and we have met from time to time since. Consequently, I think I can state with great confidence that he was NEVER an operations officer, and was unlikely to have ever become one since he expresses disapprobation for his colleagues on that side of the house. Notwithstanding some brief rotational assignment to a common DI-DO (now NSC) Center such as the CounterTerrorist Center where he would have served as an analyst, not an operations officer and would not have been involved directly in operations beyond possibly as a targetting officer (making him more hypocritical in his current criticisms than I had previously regarded him), it is false to state that he was an operations officer. The Boston Globe is just plain wrong, and published or not, if Wikipedia wants to maintain any sort of reliable reputation, it ought to take its information from more reliable sources. If you want to check my correction, ask McGovern; his email address must be available on one of his publicity seeking sites. Or ask the Globe where it got such erroneous information. There are many of us who served honorably and long with the CS who do not wish to have our reputations sullied by attributing expertise to McGovern based on false credentials. So, at least, honor my corrections by deleting the paragraph claiming him to be an operations officer until you have a reliable published source, if you need one, not a sloppy bit of reporting from the Boston Globe. At best, you should state that "According to the Boston Globe, McGovern was a ... which has been questioned by other CIA retirees."

If all this is academic because I am not properly attributing my comments on the McGovern page, let me know how to do that or where to find out how, and I'll happily conform.Henrymj 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Henry, I have no reason to disbelieve you; I'm not questioning what you say at all. As I said above, what I object to is the insertion of opinion about who has the authority to speak on a particular matter. I think your proposed solution is a good one - delete the paragraph altogether - but you should make the case for that on the talk page for that article, not to me. (Go to the article and click "discussion").--csloat 20:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't insisting on the opinion. I'll see what happens if I try your suggestion. Henrymj 11:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion tag on article you worked on

Hi there. Since you have worked on the article, thought I would give you heads up. Someone has tagged Michael Rivero for deletion. (Same players that deleted the Whatreallyhappened article before that.) Tiamut 10:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Stalking by TDC

Do not feed the trolls.

Do not feed him. Report his antics to the Admin's Noticeboard. Relax. TDC has been under various degrees of bans before. You are not the first to enjoy his shenanigans. Abe Froman 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right, I already know he is a troll; he seems to be very good at figuring out what button to push to set me off, however...--csloat 21:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, your repeated claims that you have never stalked anyone does not hold up under scrutiny. I have (as well as Ron and a number of other users to be sure) on far to many occasions that after an edit war or content dispute with you on an article, you immediately show up editing another completely unrelated article that we have been working on. I can only suspect that after you “won” a particular debate you feel emboldened enough and dig though our contributions for another victory lap. This has to stop sloat; it completely flies in the face of civility, and harassment.

Consider this your last warning.

The sad thing is that you see this as some kind of battle of wills and wits with other users instead of what it should be: a collaboration to write well informed article that abide by Wikipedia’s guidelines.

And before you begin pointing fingers at me, you brought my name into this.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

TDC please read Wikipedia:Harassment, and stop harassing me, and stop accusing me absurdly of harassing you. Thanks!--csloat 14:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If you refuse to have a civil conversation on this matter, that too bad. My "warning" to you is that action can and will be taken if you do not modify your behavior and stop your harrasment of other users. This will be my last comment on this subject. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

TDC please read Wikipedia:Harassment, and stop harassing me, and stop accusing me absurdly of harassing you. Thanks!--csloat 14:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention any one in particular - since that would be a personal attack - I'll simply observe that some people are fascist, torture-cheerleading, sock-puppeting, article-gerrymandering, User Talk-stalking, threat-making assholes. The less time we spend thinking about them, the better. Keep the faith. Ribonucleic 16:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Orwellian

It's kind of amazing to see myself being accused of stalking by someone who has repeatedly stalked me, and to be vilified for butting into a discussion that I was a part of by someone who was never a part of the discussion. Then when RonCram jumps on the bandwagon to repeat the same claims rather mindlessly, I showed him the specific Wikipedia policy on harassment, and explained why his interpretation of my actions was incorrect. In response, he ended the debate and then censored any further discussion by me. Ron, of course, is someone who has called me a censor on repeated occasions. Even worse, TDC jumps on Ron's page to personally attack me again, knowing that Ron will do his bidding for him by deleting my responses. I have deleted material from my own talk page that is annoying or personally attacking, but I have never deleted only one side of the debate in order to bias the debate the way Ron is doing. I find it all quite fascinating. I'm just talking to myself here. Hopefully nobody will "butt in."--csloat 15:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I have filed an RfC on your behavior. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Re RfC

Commodore Sloat and I have been involved in several disputes, and we rarely see eye to eye. He is betimes overzealous in his struggle against unfairness, and is not shy about speaking his mind, especially under provocation. He has apologized for some WP transgressions. In my experience, he listens to what people say, and responds in a forthright manner. Those willing to listen to what he has to say will inevitably learn something. He has strong opinions, but has been willing to compromise. I have no doubt that his primary motivation is to improve WP articles, even when I question whether he is accomplishing that goal. I unhesitantly take his side in this RfC.

If you think the paragraph above would be helpful, please let me know where to paste it. Precis 09:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

saddam/al qaeda talk page

hey csloat. i just wanted to respond to what you wrote on the talk page. i don't know if you were implying a conspiracy, but that's what it sounded like. all my edits have been my own. when i posted the fox news translations, i was surprised by the reaction and thus took an active interest in the page. i feel i'm always defending myself against accusations from you, but this one is more personal. there is no conspiracy, i know you don't like my edits but i stand by them, and i enjoy debating you when things don't get personal. accusations stifle healthy debate and we should not engage in it. i do appreciate you helping me with my redundancy problems in the page. Anthonymendoza 17:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda

I updated the al Qaeda talk page and hope this clears things up a bit regarding myself.

Sincerest Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 03:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

1984

Hi, I just read your comment here User_talk:Commodore_Sloat#Orwellian and had to tell you, I know the feeling well. I get the definite impression here at the wiki, and in the 'real world' as well, that 1984 is here. It is beginning. Anytime you want to drop me a note, please do. I would love to hear from you. Shannon^{duck talk} 08:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Re: User_talk:Travb#TDC

I casually looked at the edit, found it bad, and decided to revert it. I did not know that there had been an extensive conversation about this very subject on the talk page. I know little about Leonard Peltier. I had read the entry before but that was about it. I decided to let others with more knowledge and interest debate it. I would suggest never using the word "lie", even if it is true. Instead use more diplomatic terms such as "completely fallacious" as you do.

I was in a big war with TDC and an anon last year, over WSI which went to arbitration. I think they maybe breaking the rules of the arbitration, but I am not sure. What concerned me so much is how I was so down on TDC originally, and I was blind to the exact same tactics of the anon until later. So I hesitate to get involved in these recent edit wars when my imparitalitly and bias is obviously on the liberal side. I readily see TDC's behavior, but maybe I am blind to your behavior being the same. Maybe you delete information just as actively as he does. I dont know. You probably wouldn't want me to get involved in these arguments because, like WSI, I actively offended everyone.

"hopefully he will eventually come to see that adding information is better than deleting it and that more points of view make wikipedia stronger" This is my biggest concern. In fact, it is my only concern. In about a half hour of looking over his edits, I noticed there are several pages he deleted large portions of text. I find it troubling, but I don't know how to stop it, and after WSI I question my own impartiality in the process. I got interested in TDC's edits again, when I had unwatched Colombian_Armed_Conflict#Quotes and TDC came along and deleted almost the entire quotes section, citing POV. Often, instead of adding material which counters what he sees as POV, he deletes large sections.

He is a real smart guy and he could push his POV much more effictively if he just used more diplomacy. Anyway, best wishes. Can I ask why the RfC was dropped against you? I protested against the RfC on CJK's talk page. Out of courteousy, I will let TDC know about this coversation we are having, although he probably already watches your page. Travb (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to stop edit wars

WP:AMA and

Contact this third party wikipedian, who helped me with the most sophisticated conservative on wikipedia: User:Tyrenius#Disputes

Signed: Travb (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pillar

Don't argue with him. He is convinced that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks and nothing you say will change that. Just focus on stopping his pro-"Saddam/9-11" conspiracy theory POV pushing in articles. Responding to politically charged comments will only turn talk pages into discussion forums, something that nobody wants.--Jersey Devil 02:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the section before it fills the talk page like the other commentary has.--Jersey Devil 02:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

RE: CIA and the revert you had today....

Thought you might want to know: Talk:Central_Intelligence_Agency#Minor_revert_war_RE:_Mohammad_Reza_Aghaei_Laghaei. Travb (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also thanks for your contributions to CIA and Contra's cocaine trafficking in the US You doubled the size of the article. Now we just need a non-deleting conservative to edit the page to make it more balanced... Travb (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I've been noticing that guy's nonsense on the CIA pages for a while now; it seems like Mr Reza is a friend of his he's trying to play a joke on. As for non-deleting conservatives, I'm sure a deleting one will show up soon enough since he stalks my edits with regularity ;) I don't think I've given him much to do, however, since everything I added is pretty verifiable, and has been acknowledged by both sides. There's still a lot to do on that page however.--csloat 17:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I keep thinking he and another user are the same person, but I already did a user check and they are not. I said before they share the same brain, but not the same body. This other user likes to debate with me more, which I like, and doesn't seem as prone to delete items as TDC.Travb (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Need vote in AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America

Signed: Travb (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

fact tag on cole page

I read the relevant Talk page, and your are not alleging that the article is not factual. You are alleging that it is missing some context (Cole's claim that he was not interested in the job) - go ahead and add that context. But the article as it is does not contain any disputed facts. Isarig 00:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Inivitation to essay

Hi Commodore Sloat, I have noticed your very sensisible comments on several academic biographies of late. I'm sure you saw it on the bell hooks talk page, but I would particularly invite your comments or contributions at Wikipedia:Academic and artistic biographies, if you are so inclined. It's "meta", and you may prefer to work on content than administravia. But I've tried to point it in a general direction that addresses a large swatch of concerns I repeatedly run into on academic bios. LotLE×talk 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Query about RfC

Greetings, I was wondering how one goes about getting a conduct RfC going. If you've seen bell hooks, you'll know that (1) editors have tried to work with User:Kmaguir1, but (2) he doesn't know how to play well with others. Evidence for (1): I took one of his paragraphs and revised part of it in a NPOV and kept it in the article, rather than simply blanket removing his changes. I did the same thing with his criticism section at Judith Butler. All well and good. But meanwhile, (2), he continues to insert the same criticism paragraph day after day, despite the fact that he has gotten no consensus for it, various editors delete it on sight, and the first third of it is completely redundant, since the version I edited is in the article. So, we have someone who repeatedly ignores WP:CONSENSUS. My question is whether an RfC is appropriate in such a case, or whether there is another avenue. I've been editing for about six months, but I haven't run into much of this before. Thanks for any pointers.--Anthony Krupp 13:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I wonder if you would care to comment at the admins' noticeboard, here. Thanks,--Anthony Krupp 15:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

An article RfC is usually a more appropriate first step. But the ignoring of consensus makes it clear that this is a conduct problem, not a content problem. Anyway, the instructions are here; at the very minimum, at least two users have to contact this person on his talk page first and ask him to stop. If you are not trying to find other ways to solve the problem before turning to RfC, it will be rejected. So let's try that first; since both of us have tried to get this guy to stop on the talk page, let's post to his user talk page and see if that helps. (I may have already done that, I can't recall, but will do right now).--csloat 18:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1; if you're familiar with this, please join in. (A second five-tilde signature is necessary as well.) Thanks,--Anthony Krupp 19:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You and I both know, Sloat.

That an article forcing the combination of a living person's views with their criticisms doesn't float. Your objections thus far focus on my being "new" to an article, and baseless accusations of trolling. Just stop the rhetoric, really. What are your objections to the format used for countless other often-criticized pundits? Italiavivi 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My objections have nothing to do with other articles. My objection is to an unexplained change made to an article that took weeks of discussion to acheive consensus on a name and focus for. There may be other articles about "criticism." That's lovely. The Juan Cole article is about his views and the controversies surrounding those views. You would have noticed this had you read the article -- section 1 is "Views" and section 2 is "controversies." If you would like to see that changed, please enter the discussion page and make a reasonable argument rather than complaining about Ann Coulter. Thanks.--csloat 00:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD

If you would like to throw your two cents in on what I consider to be an obvious delete, you can find the AfD discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NATO helmet. Shazbot85^Talk 15:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Bush Derangement Syndrome 2nd AfD

I've reverted your change to the old Afd discussion. If what I think you're doing is what you're doing, you want to open a 2nd Afd because someone recreated it, right? Hang on, and I'll do that for you in just a jiff. BaseballBaby 06:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't just blank the old discussion - hang on and I'll have it finished in a few minutes. BaseballBaby 06:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay - you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome 2nd nomination. Those 2nd and 3rd noms can be really confusing, but it's all good now. In a minute, I'm going to list the original on the 2nd nom page (just a link to the debate), but in the meantime go ahead and give your 1st deletion reason. Happy editing - BaseballBaby 06:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Invite to the Thunderdome

I left this message on both User talk:TDC and User talk:Commodore Sloat.

If the two of you are interested in having it out internet smackdown style, I invite you both to sign up at Conservative Underground and start a thread in the Thunderdome forum. CU doesn't have anything near the strict civility rules of WP, and in the Thuderdome, even those rules are suspended for the most part. If you both declare it "mano a mano", the moderators will keep everyone else out of it, and you guys can settle your dispute (or at least make your feelings known) in a cage match atmosphere. Who knows, one or both of you might decide to stick around. Liberals aren't banned out of hand, and there are even a few lib mods. We do expect them to back up their talking points with facts though. Stop by the Welcome Wagon forum to introduce yourselves after the blood sweat and tears are cleaned up. Crockspot 22:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no thanks. It's bad enough having to deal with TDC here. If you want to talk us into a debate, I'm down for a live public debate -- the kind our leader chickened out of -- anytime. But I see no point in wasting even more of my time on yet another aggravating internet smackdown forum. Let's concentrate on improving an encyclopedia here instead of trying to insult each other based on presumption of what our politics are, ok?--csloat 18:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I just thought it would be a way to let you guys vent outside of WP, preventing incidents like on Friday in the AfD. I have to admit, it would also provide some entertainment for my VRWC buddies at CU.Crockspot 18:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Advertising for forums I believe is considered spam. Even on talk pages. Please refrain from doing it in Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 19:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

IS the equivalent neologism to BDS. No one but a small percentage thinks they are real "syndromes" or "conspiracies." I responded on the talk page. I don't really appreciate the personal attacks. I have never questioned your motivations as far as I recall.--Tbeatty 16:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant to criticize your words, not your motivations; I hope my comments were tied to what you actually said. I disagree that "conspiracy" is the same as "syndrome." If you don't believe BDS is a real "syndrome," why did you say it was? Sorry for anything I said you took offense at; if there's anything else you'd like me to respond to, let me know here, because I took that page off my list.--csloat 18:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. Look at the AfD page. I think there is a political aspect to it, just like "conspiracy" is not an accurate word to refer to opposition to Clinton, "syndrome" is not accurate as a medical term. But both "conspiracy" and "syndrome" are used to describe a core of people that are opposed to everything that Clinton and Bush stood for respectively. If Clinton/Bush said the sky was blue, there are people that would immediately claim they are lying and wrong. That's the "conspiracy" and "syndrome" in a nutshell. Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is a notable neologism and describes a group of people even if there isn't a "conspiracy." Similarly, BDS is a notable neologism and describes a group of people even if there isn't a "syndrome." And besides, I thought describing it as a "real syndrome cybersexually transmitted through the Democratic Underground circle jerk" was pretty funny but perhaps crude. I hope you didn't think it was serious. --Tbeatty 19:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - I suppose I let some of this stuff get to me too much, which is why I felt it best to just take that contentious page off my watchlist. Again, my apologies.--csloat 02:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Re : AfD/Post Election Selection Trauma

Per Wikipedia:Consensus this is a clear case of no consensus present, given that even a simple majority of opinon is not present. A merge vote is not counted as a delete, and usually consensus stands at 70% treshold or more. I must admit that some AfDs does receive really poor responses, but in this case I believe it does gather sufficient attention as I handle cases where decisions have to be made with as little as 2 'votes'! - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 10:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories - Jersey Girls

Hi: I think you're right that the link to 9/11 conspiracy theories was not correct on the Jersey Girls page, thanks for the change. I'm trying to flesh-out the "See also" section there. Kaimiddleton 16:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Calm Down

I am not a troll, and there is no need for that kind of language. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you leave a message on someone's page accusing them of stalking and telling them in essence to 'shut up and get to work', you might be violating WP:DICK, and shouldn't be surprised at an emotional reaction. You may want to consider whether in fact you are the one out of line, and perhaps ought to leave sloat's page alone for a while until you've something of value to discuss beyond making accusations and being disrespectful. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ryan - my apologies that this discussion has migrated to your own talk page; thanks for providing your relevant and level-headed input.

TDC, I left you a message on your talk page after you used the edit summary on one of your deletions on another page to attack me unjustifiably. You attacked me there for something I never did, to make matters worse. I asked you to stop bothering me, and made the entirely appropriate suggestion that if you had a problem with one of my edits, you first make sure it actually was my edit you had a problem with, and then that you take that problem to the talk page. Instead of responding to my message you accuse me of stalking without any justification whatsoever -- we have been through your groundless assertions about stalking again and again, including through a phony RfC that you started, and you have been proven wrong about it again and again. So please drop the silliness. I was responding directly to a comment you had made naming me as an offender of some sort -- to claim that is stalking just shows that you don't take this encyclopedia seriously at all. That is why I believe you are a troll TDC -- you have been caught lying over and over again, and you don't even care -- you continue to make false statements and baseless accusations. For you this appears to be a lot more about trying to piss off individual wikipedia editors you don't like rather than about improving any of the articles. Now I'm going to ask you again to please leave me alone. I really don't have time to engage people who cannot be honest in discussions here.--csloat 20:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

First, considering how abusive you have been in edit summaries, you should anticipate that your criticisms fall on deaf ears. And for someone who has little time to engage “people who cannot be honest in discussions”, you sure seem to be making that time. But perhaps it would be better to drop this, for now. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

TDC, antagonist in a nasty dispute with another editor? It's not the first time, or even the 10th. [1] Abe Froman 21:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Salman Pak facility

Please don't revert again, or you will be blocked for violation 3RR. Also, this is not appropriate. Please don't let it happen again. Naconkantari 17:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

how's that wikivacation coming, Anthony? ;)

hey csloat. i see you read my post on my user page. i've enjoyed debating you and have learned a lot from our back and forths. i learned facts from you i wouldn't have found on my own and i never took our spats personally. but i really don't have time to be a wikipedia contributor anymore, at least in the way i want to be. take care!Anthonymendoza 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And one for the Commode-or

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post Election Selection Trauma (second nomination) Morton devonshire 01:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

How about this for a suggestion...

See here Armon 01:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

PEST AfD

Hi. Thanks for your message about Post Election Selection Trauma and your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post Election Selection Trauma. As someone who reads some conservative blogs, I remember the coverage of this from November 2004 and I've noticed continuing references to it in those blogs. It's not a hoax (as you've discovered since writing your message to me). On the other hand, the "syndrome", the psychologist who coined it and the 2 or 3 newspaper stories about it are, IMO, way below Wikipedia's standards for notability. Getting mentioned by the Columbia Journalism Review is more significant, but still not enough for WP:Notability. The only way in which it is notable is as an Internet meme used by conservative bloggers and columnists. I'd say it just scrapes in as notable enough for a wikipedia article.

Incidentally, Commodore, I've started paying special attention to your comments on AfD discussions, because you make lots of good points. I don't always agree with them, but I take them seriously. Cheers, CWC(talk) 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the PEST AFD. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 19:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologize for what may have seemed like a put down.--CSTAR 07:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries; you're right, I need a break. I can't believe I put that much energy into one word. Eventually the page should reflect that Kramer has a particular axe to grind and that his organization Campus Watch has as its raison d'etre to attack the credibility of professors perceived as insufficiently supportive of Israeli policies in its occupied territories; but for now I'm content to find other things to do :) --csloat 22:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

Your latest edit to Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole is your 4th revert in 24 hours. Please self-revert it, or I will report you. Isarig 19:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha - nice one. Looks like you just violated the same rule, but I can't report you because I am now blocked. A wonderful display of good faith; have a nice day.--csloat 17:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Cole Quicktime

Thanks Commodore Cheers Will314159 19:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC) FYI Commodore interesting reading http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/ezekiel.htm http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/csa-mem.htm best wishes Will314159 19:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

another b.s. block initiated by Isarig. Once he violated 3RR. I let him go. he turned me in. I got blocked for 24 hours. then I turned him in for his violation prior to mine that i had let go in a forginving nature, and it was ignored. he's a real prince. Sorry it happened Commodore. Call for help next time. take care! Will314159 18:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can report him; just go here and post a note with links to each of his four reverts. I believe his fourth revert was 24 hours and 5 minutes, so perhaps technically he has not hit the ceiling, but he is clearly gaming the rule in bad faith -- particularly since he turned me in for violating it. For him to do so and then go ahead and revert the same material a fourth time himself, especially when there is a discussion ongoing about those particular changes, shows astounding bad faith. Especially now that his actions have effectively locked me out of that discussion. CSTAR is correct; Isarig is very good at manipulation. Of course, I have no one to blame but myself for violating the 3RR, but it is quite obvious that he played me like a fiddle there. A conduct RfC may eventually be in order if he keeps this up.--csloat 20:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

haven't figured out how to do the legend Will314159 00:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's speculation on your it was made it in bad faith; maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Attempting to infer motives in a way that you can actually logically support is very difficult, and is also draining. --CSTAR 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[2] made on October 16 2006 to Views_and_controversies_concerning_Juan_Cole

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 08:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fukuyama's "Misprison"

The reason I am not willing to let this idea that Fukuyama somehow is guilty of an intentional distortion of Hegel's Dialectic is because I don't understand how Marx can turn Hegel's writing (that our conscious ideas influence and shape reality) upside down into Dialectical Materialism (that our cultural ideas are shaped by the facts of reality) and be called an absolute genius, and yet if Fukuyama tries to make a more conservative interpretation of his dialectic and say that liberal democracy, not communism, is the end-point of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, then it's a misprison. 68.88.202.214 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem seems more fundamental than that -- and this is why most Hegelian philosophers, who are far from Marxist, reject the notion that Fukuyama is Hegelian or even a serious philosopher. Hegel did not argue for a neat "synthesis" -- his notion of Aufhebung (much better translated by the word "sublation," invented from the Latin specifically for the purpose of translating this term) was not a simple "synthesis." In addition, Fukuyama's entire understanding of Hegel comes from Kojève, whose focus is entirely on the chapter of the Phenomenology on Lordship and Bondage. Kojève has been rightfully criticized on this point, and as influential as his reading has no doubt been, it is entirely accurate to say it is a misprision of Hegel. Fukuyama then misinterprets and oversimplifies Kojève, which is why I called his reading a misprision of a misprision (though Fukuyama's misreading is arguably less intentional and more simplistic than Kojève's). To compare Fukuyama to Marx, finally, is kind of silly if you've actually read any Marx beyond the Communist Manifesto, though it certainly makes sense if that is all you've read of Marx.--csloat 05:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the patronizing tone of your last comment. Granted, since you seem to have more experience and you made an appropriate cite, I've ceased editing the Fukuyama article because you were right, but that doesn't mean I will simply allow you to flippantly dismiss me as some sort of armchair political scientist. I have The Early Writings of Karl Marx sitting on my coffee table right here in front of me. If you took into consideration the historical context Fukuyama was writing in, and WHY he wrote The End of History, then the comparison is quite frankly, gee whiz, golly, not so silly. If you're going to plug your ears and say that Marx had nothing to do with the Soviet Union, then fine, but that's ignoring the Hegelian, and later Marxist assumption (That History was on THEIR side) that influenced every aspect of Soviet foreign policy (as explained by George F. Kennan in his famous 1947 X Article). This assumption was what Fukuyama's essay was about. He did not just suddenly sit up one day in an ivory tower and say "Aces! I just had the most astounding reflection upon Hegel's concept of history! I think I'll write an essay about it!" He wrote it in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union as a superpower. 68.88.200.8 02:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did I write that he didn't?--csloat 06:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for generating a new site for me

Hi Sloaty, honey, I am missing a comment over on the Patrick Lang discussion board. You left this wonderful contribution were you generated a new site layout especially for me. Here is your contribution again, in case you forgot:

The Cartoons thing appears at the top of every page on that site. Click on "Mesopotamia" and it's still there. It's an ad for their pdf about the cartoon. Maybe a mistake; maybe they are just spamming links to the cartoon. I don't think Lang is singled out here. This page has the same ad on it.--csloat 20:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much dear.

http://www.baghdadmuseum.org/ref/index.php?title=Commodore_Sloat_csloat

But you still did not answer my question why a search "Patrick Lang" + Wikipedia did bring up the link while "Commodore Sloat csloat" + Wikipedia brings up zero?

http://www.baghdadmuseum.org/ref/index.php?title=LeaNder_de_Cologne LeaNder 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. I think it's just broken wiki software and you're reading too much into it.--csloat 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion tag on article you worked on

Hi there. Since you have worked on the article, thought I would give you heads up. Someone has tagged Michael Rivero for deletion. (Same players that deleted the Whatreallyhappened article before that.) Tiamut 10:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR question

Sorry, didn't notice your comment before. That's certainly a lot closer to 3RR than 6 reverts in 6 days, or even 4 reverts in 25 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly suggest to Isarig that 3RR is not an entitlement, and that dicussion is often the better approach. Would you like me to try to mediate the Karsh page? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would help to suggest the reasoning for the 3RR because he seems to think it is as you said, an "entitlement." I don't know if mediation on Karsh would help - I'm not involved in editing that page; I wound up there because of Isarig's antics on the Cole pages. But it can't hurt.--csloat 15:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Will314159's block

I have reviewed the reasons given for Will314159's block and I find the length of the block to be consistent with his actions. If a consensus of other users disagrees with me, I will gladly overturn it, but at present I feel the severity of his comments justifies the length of the given block. However, I appreciate and thank you for the time taken in leaving a reasoned, conscientious request on my talk page. Best regards, RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Alas, an RfC is what's needed, but it's not in my court to file it. Also, it's 1:50 AM where I am right now and I desperately need to go to bed. Good night, RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OBL worldwide perception article AFD

You might be interested in this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 07:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Following Policy

Hi again. I have removed your attacks from my User Talk page. I have apologized to you for incivility in our interaction; it is unnecessary to stalk my other edits and use them to attack me. If you do not accept my apology, I don't know what to say. But there is no reason to torment me on my talk page. If you feel my conduct is a violation of Wikipedia policies, there are procedures in place to enforce those policies. Feel free to use them. I personally disagree with you. Have a nice day!--csloat 22:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In providing my responses on your talk page I was answering the question you presented on my talk page and also expressly following policy as well. So, to do those things I had to use your talk page. That is what your talk page is for. It is not a matter of attack as you suppose. If you did not notice, I did not warn you about incivility JUST to me. The complaint was wider and more general than that. And so, in answer to your question, I presented the pattern of behaviors and responses that are the subject of the complaint. It is a problem that you have in the way you interact. You need to tame it. That is the message. I appreciate the apology but it is meaningless if it does not result in changed behavior. If you feel tormented, then change your manners so that such things do not have to appear on your talk page. But, once again, that is what a talk page is for.... to bring these things to your attention. I am following policy, even if you do not like it. Have a nice day. --Blue Tie 22:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I would prefer to engage in a dialogue than to have you throw accusations on my page and then announce that you don't want me to respond. I felt it was an attack. I removed your comments because (1) I was not allowed an opportunity to respond to them, and (2) I felt you were incorrect. You cited items as personal attacks that were simply accurate statements of my perception of what was going on. User ss108 had posted a quote that Salon is a "tabloid" claimed that quote meant it was not good investigative journalism. I showed that the quote was taken totally out of context, and that it specifically went on to defend Salon's investigative journalism. This is a fact. He continued to assert the claim, ignoring my comment and the rest of the quote. At that point, yes, I felt that the action was mendacious. And, yes, I did think your arguments in defense of his position bordered on the absurd (please check and see that I changed the wording of that sentence so it was clear that I was attacking the argument and not you). I participate on Wikipedia out of a desire to improve these articles and offer my contribution on issues I have expertise or knowledge about. When someone says something that I think is incorrect, I will state that fact. That is not incivility. And as you should know, WP:AGF does not mean an editor should have to ignore reality:

This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith.

I feel that ss108s actions were evidence not of malice per se but of the intentional distortion of a quotation in order to make a point that the quotation did not make. That is, to me, the definition of mendacity. I did not accuse you of such, but I did say that I thought your position bordered on the absurd. I still do. Salon, as I have shown, is a widely respected outlet for responsible journalism, and in the entire discussion we had, you did not once post a single piece of evidence to the contrary. Once again, I apologize for expressing my frustration in a manner you found uncomfortable, but I do not believe I have violated Wikipedia policies.--csloat 22:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome regarding the comments. I understand about the problem of not dialoging but you have been aggressive and impolite and after a while, I prefer to just walk away from that sort of thing rather than continue it. I would not have posted again to your talk page except that 1). you asked a question and 2). I reviewed the procedures on the matter and that was the right thing to do. I do not mind if you remove my comments, although I do not agree with your reasons. Even if you perceive things in a particular way, you should be civil and you were not. As far as ss108 goes (I do not know him and never interacted with him), even if you disagree with him, and even if he is in the wrong, you should not "give as good as you got". I do believe you were in violation of policy but I do not mind if that is all in the past. My only real interest is that things are better in the future. I do not hold grudges nor do I consider the past a perfect indicator of the future. If the future is better than the past, then I am an easy person to get along with. That is.. as soon as people learn the proper way to worship me :-). --Blue Tie 01:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR specialists get away with their behaviour.

I've noticed similar behaviour from this person. I'm not sure of the best way to progress. I'm currently collecting evidence (adding to a text file on my m/c) against a contributor who carries on in an even more POV fashion. PalestineRemembered 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole

Regarding [3], are these not somewhat noteworthy (if not reliable) sources? If not, this is at least a vein of criticism which, at least in somewhat less hysterical form, looks like it may warrant mention in the article. It would be far better to find a secondary source describing the "controversy", but something on the matter should probably be included. —Centrx→talk • 02:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Noteworthy in what way? They are at the radical right wing fringe of Middle East Studies, at least on this issue, and some of them (not necessarily Karsh) are known for an organized assault on the discipline through the MEQ and an organization called Campus Watch. I would definitely be fine with a secondary source describing the controversy if one existed, but one doesn't exist (to my knowledge) because this is not a notable strain of critique. Karsh has an article in a nonacademic magazine attacking Cole's blog; when Cole responded he said the claims were "beneath contempt." They are. The only reason Armon and others are so vehement about keeping these claims on here appears to be to give them more visibility. If a third party source can be found discussing this dispute that would be fine. The problem is that the claims themselves are ludicrous; they are not about reality, but they are about what Karsh thinks Cole must be secretly thinking, even though when Cole talks about it explicitly he says the exact opposite. It is poor reasoning by Karsh that is being elevated to encyclopedic status. Such a thing would never appear in a print encyclopedia. The fact that Karsh published the claim does not make it noteworthy or encyclopedic. I also believe it explicitly violates BLP to include it, and you have unfortunately protected a version of the page which is in violation of these policies.--csloat 07:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Isarig and 3RR

I have been having a problem with Isarig. Can you tell me about you experinces with this user? Carbonate 05:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Can of Worms

I have no illusion of changing his mind, and I only try to engage his points as they pertain to wikipedia content and references. I really have no idea what the wikipolicy or best practice is on this kinda stuff, but isn't there some sort of mechanism, watchlist (how ironic, given his political beliefs!), or anything regarding editors who consistantly push POV over long periods of time? We can remove a lot of what he says based on WP:OR, but in the end I'm worried my (IMHO otherwise little-tarnished) reputation will be damaged by simply "fighting the good fight." Have you taken any official courses of action (admins' involvement, mediation, community ban, etc.)? If so, what was the experience like? Thanks so much for the reply, btw. I tend to remove this sort of communique after it's received. /Blaxthos 09:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

This, is a blatant personal attack. I'm frankly sick of this behavior, and will report it if it continues. Armon 23:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Second warning

Please indicate the personal attack more clearly. I attacked your arguments and the manner in which you forward them. I did not say anything about you as a person. If I did, I will happily retract it.csloat 23:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a slapfight with you over this. You're intelligent, read the template messages, read the diffs, and figure it out for yourself. Armon 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I did. I attacked your arguments and the manner in which you forward them. I did not say anything about you as a person. If I did, I will happily retract it. Thanks for keeping me abreast of Wikipedia policy.csloat 00:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Espionage Page

Thought you might want to contribute your two cents to the History of Soviet espionage in the United States talk page. Abe Froman 00:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Tit for tat

Regarding this supposed personal attack: Article talk pages are for discussing the article. They are not chat-rooms, Usenet groups, or blog comments, in which to fill with off topic cruft and silly tit-for-tats. Despite meeting all of your requirements, you've quite clearly shifted position in order to invalidate it. That is prerogative. It is also the prerogative, and quite reasonably so, for others to view that as a less-than-good-faith position, especially as you haven't shifted your objection to the passage one iota. Rather than submit the improving sentence you alluded to, you are instead flailing around for another means of scrubbing the section, and impeding any progress forward on the article. Your position has been repeatedly shown to be untenable, so now you want an argument about NPA. Stop it. Armon 03:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am discussing the article, specifically, the attacks on Cole that you wish to put in the article. Why must you make this personal? I have not shifted position; as explained above, I was reexplaining my position because it obviously was not clear to you the first time. If you read my comments in context it should be clear what I was asking for -- but what's the difference? The editing on this article should be done in accordance with WP:BLP, not in accordance something you happen to catch an individual editor saying. Please assume good faith when arguing about this. Your characterization of my motives is incorrect and demeaning.csloat 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Hi Sloat,

This RfC may be of interest to you. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan Kudos for the great job you've done on Saddam and al Qaeda, and other articles that the Conspiracy Theorist / Propagandist / Wiki Wingnutters target with their Disinfo campaigns. Well done Commander! I think it might be time to shine the light of truth a litle brighter on the lies and conspiracies of Stephen F. Hayes. Even though he's been thoroughly disproven, he remains the Wiki Wingnut's favorite 'go to guy' for their ongoing campaign of Disinfo, Conspiracy Theories and Propaganda in regards to Saddam's allleged ties to al Qaeda. Keep up the excellent work! - F.A.A.F.A. 23:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Phony Warnings and threats

Please cease your pony warnings and threats on my Talk page. Describing your actions is not a personal attack. Threatening an editor with blocks is. This is your final warning. Isarig 04:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Assertion is not argument

"Assertion is not argument; to contradict the statement of an opponent is not proof that you are correct." -- Samuel Johnson (English lexicographer, critic, and poet, 1709-1784) Armon 01:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Let us know what Mr. Johnson has to say about non sequitur. csloat 01:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

I protest this block. I reverted twice, not four times, as I explained. I had no idea the "divestment bit" was at issue until after Armon reported me. It was only then that he explained himself in talk, even though I invited him to explain himself several times. I did not consider my compromise change a revert, and nobody else claimed it was a revert until I got reported. It is awful to see admins treat the 3RR as a license -- Armon reverted the exact same thing 3 times, without any change or attempt at compromise, while I actually attempted to compromise. Yet because Armon reported me (without ever engaging in talk over the dispute!) I get blocked, and he does not even get a warning. The lesson here appears to be that the 3RR is a game -- revert up to three times in 24 hours as often as you like, and arrogantly refuse to discuss your reverts, and your behavior will be condoned by admins as long as you don't make a fourth revert until the 25th hour -- in fact, the admins will even help you out by blocking anyone who dares to challenge your behavior. Congratulations Armon, you've won. csloat 09:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand your explanation. [4] and [5] are reverts (as is [. The first because "restore" is essentially revert; the second because although not labelled a revert its the same as the first. If you weren't aware that disinvestement was an issue, why were you reverting it? William M. Connolley 10:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think there was an objection to my change to that part of the sentence. I thought he was objecting to the inclusion of "However, despite his criticisms of Israeli policy," which I thought he was calling POV. I understand what you mean, but I was not aware that my changes were all considered reversions to the same version when I was making those changes; I was honestly blindsided by this 3RR report. I specifically tried to avoid reverting when I made this edit -- instead of reverting to the previous version with what I thought was the objectionable phrase, I eliminated the phrase entirely (including the divestment thing). I objected to the divestment thing because it appeared to me to be about South Africa, not Israel, although after he reported me Armon pointed out in talk that possible Israeli divestment is mentioned later in the article. I feel such a point should have been made before reporting me; as I said, I had no idea anyone would have considered this a revert continuous with the other revert. The way I was looking at it, I made one revert ("restore"), then made a different change to the page that I did not think anyone would consider a revert, and then I made two reverts. This was complicated by the fact that Armon did not explain why he was reverting until after he had made three reverts to the exact same page. I realize we have had some heated arguments on that page, but I feel all of my actions there were in good faith, and after all the reverts, I even showed more good faith by making additional changes to the page that included all of the disputed material that Armon wanted in (though as direct quotations rather than summaries that I felt were too POV).-csloat 10:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this is what I was talking about in terms of people gaming the system and getting the support of admins to do so. Now that Armon has me blocked for a 3RR violation, he went ahead and made his fourth revert to the page in less than 24 hours. Meanwhile, I am unable to file a report about it since I have been blocked. His four reverts can easily be seen if you look at the edit history for the page. csloat 13:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, its not immeadiately obvious why thats a revert. Can you clarify? William M. Connolley 13:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I sent you an email with all the pertinent information. He reverted to almost the exact same version he had started with; it is more of a direct revert than my "reverts" were. Here is the version he reverted to. Below are his four reverts:

1.17:02, 22 November 2006

2.17:32, 22 November 2006

3.17:37, 22 November 2006

4.05:06, 23 November 2006

As you can see, here is a comparison of his fourth revert with the original version he was reverting to -- they are almost exactly the same (though the spacing makes it look like there are more changes than there are; from what I can tell, only the "blanket ban" phrase is changed). He deleted my edits from my good faith compromise -- edits that were intended to include all of the information he thought was necessary, including the controversial "divestment" stuff as well, but he found it necessary to revert anyway. Again, it's unfortunate to see an editor doing that with impunity while at the same time being very condescending and arrogant when turning me in for violations of the same rule. I hope you'll take this into account when considering his case.-csloat 21:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree William M. Connolley 21:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your sense of fairness. I don't wish to be at war with this user and I hope that both of us can edit with cooler heads in the future. csloat 21:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Happy thanksgiving, if you celebrate that where you are. :) csloat 21:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[6] made on November 23 2006 to Juan Cole

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 08:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Cole sandbox

Cole's position on Iraq clarified:

"My position on the war was in fact very complex. I thought it was a terrible idea, but declined to come out against it because I believed that if Saddam's genocidal regime could be removed by the international community in a legal way, that some good would have been accomplished. But the bottom line is that I thought a war would be legal only if the United Nations Security Council authorized it."

Heads up

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Page_disruption_on_Juan_Cole_by_User:Commodore_Sloat Travb...(talk) 21:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[7] made on November 29 2006 to Juan Cole

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. —Centrx→talk • 21:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Team B

hey commodore.

RE: [8]

I have found ignoring 99% of all talk page arguments is helpful, especially on a page like Team B which is not very active.

Before I used to respond to every word on the talk page, which would make people want to then change the main page. Better to let people get what is off their chests and then move on. Travb (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your RFM

Should yourself and the other involved parties agree, I have decided to take the case. Could you please indicate your acceptance on the mediation page? Thanks Martinp23 18:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I'm still waiting for Isarig (talk · contribs) to accept me as mediator - when this is done, I'll prepare a discussion space on the talk page of the mediation request (presuming, of course, that at thet point we're all still happy for public mediation). Thanks, Martinp23 21:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking - for now, I'd prefer if you didn;t make a response to any comments made (this is to try to help everyone calm down and see the statements by others, without then having to see a load of replies too). Once we've got all of the summaries in, we'll be able to move forward and decide on a course of action based on how much the descriptions of the dispute differ (and other factors, of course!) - I assure you that the concerns you've mentioned to me will not go ignored, and I will invite them as soon as I feel it's the right point. Thanks for your understanding, Martinp23 22:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks, yet again

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Isarig 00:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (false accusation again struck by csloat)

This: "Your vehemence on this particular issue makes me wonder about your own interests here; you could certainly clear the air by letting us know what they are." Is clearly a personal attack, as well as a violation of WP:AGF. Please stop, and do not remove warnings from your talk page. <<-armon->> 03:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No; it is not. That is explained on the page; you have not explained in any way why this is a "personal attack." Please do not join in in these specious reports against me, Armon - I really dont have time for this. I can also list a number of personal attacks by Isarig against me in that very discussion. But I don't see the need for this nonsense. If you have something relevant to add to the discussion, please do so -- but please do not launch edit wars on my user page and false accusations of rule violations when you find yourself unable to add productively to the discussion. Thanks. csloat 03:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly and explicitly a personal attack. Cease it at once, and stop removing or striking out warnings from your user page. Isarig 03:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. I have explained that already. You have explained nothing. Please stop commenting on my talk page. I have read what you have to say here. Thanks.csloat 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War

Talk:Iraq_War#.22Part_of_War_on_Terrorism.22 Discussion is finally starting up. I'd appreciate your continued input as it looks like you're one of the users who has tried to write about the relationship between the Iraq War and the WOT. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Sloat, where is this consensus you are talking about? ~Rangeley (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the straw poll? ~Rangeley (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Might be interested

I noticed that you took part in State terrorism by United States of America discussion for deletion. After the article has survived many deletions, you may be interested that there is a user right now who is deleting large portions of the article. 69.150.209.15 17:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)